GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON PADMA KALITA V/S THE BTAD AND 7 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 7:

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6; Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. B.K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 7.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent No. 3 in awarding the Cattle Market under Basugaon Municipal Board for the year 2025-26 in favour of the respondent No. 7 in spite of the fact that the petitioner was the highest bidder.

3. This Court duly takes note of that the respondent No. 3 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 07.03.2025 for the period 2025- 26 for settlement of the Cattle Market under the Basugaon Municipal Board for the settlement period i.e. 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026. The petitioner along with various other bidders participated in the said tender process. The bid quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 12,51,000/-. However, the bid quoted by the respondent No. 7 was Rs. 5,30,355/-. The Tender Evaluating Committee of the respondent No. 3 Board selected by majority the petitioner for the financial year 2025-26 as the lessee of the Cattle Market. However, the respondent No. 2, who otherwise did not have any authority insisted upon the respondent No. 3 to award the settlement of the Cattle Market to the respondent No. 7 at an amount of Rs. 5,30,355/- and resultantly, the settlement order dated 28.03.2025 was issued. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. This Court vide an order dated 04.04.2025 stayed the settlement order dated 28.03.2025 in favour of the respondent No. 7. The interim order thereupon has been continued. The record further reveals that in spite of opportunity being granted, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

5. Today, Mr. S. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 has placed before this Court, a para wise comments issued by the Chairman of the respondent No. 3. The said para wise comments is kept on record and marked with the letter "X". From a perusal of the said para wise comments, it is seen that though the petitioner is the highest bidder, but because of the fact that the respondent No. 2 who is a superior authority of the respondent No. 3 had issued a communication directing the respondent No. 3 to allow the settlement of Cattle Market in favour of the respondent No. 7, the impugned settlement order dated 28.03.2025 was made in favour of the respondent No. 7.

6. It is the opinion of this Court that such actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities to issue the impugned settlement order dated 28.03.2025 in favour of the respondent No. 7 is a clear case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, the same is not only a case of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, but also suffers from malice in law and abuse of the powers conferred upon the Authorites. It is also the opinion of this Court that granting a settlement in favour of a person whose bid was lower than another eligible bidder who had quoted a higher rate and that too without justifiable reasons is not in public interest. Accordingly, the impugned settlement order dated 28.03.2025 is required to be interfered with.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwzD696azDQckfoXh4XGZONj3L1iwkwNF6Z%2FPkDb%2Bc22&caseno=WP(C)/1925/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010073022025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.