Debabrata Paul vs State Of Assam And 7 Ors

Heard Mr. V.K Barooah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S Dutta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Silchar Municipal Board and

Mr. A Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

The petitioner, who claims to be a permanent resident of Aryapatty area of Silchar Municipality has instituted this writ petition assailing the notice

dated 20.01.2015 of the Executive Officer of Silchar Municipal Board, by which it was notified that the tendered bids would be accepted within 12

noon of 29.01.2015 for giving settlement of space measuring 4397 sq feet on the third fllor of block A, 1224 sq feet on the second floor of block B and

2695 sq feet on the second floor of block C in the market building of Fatakbazar under Silchar Municipality. The interested bidders were required to

submit their bids along with the required particulars as stated therein.

The petitioner assails the notice inviting tender on the ground that adequate publicity was not made by the Executive Officer, which prevented the

petitioner from participating in the tender process although he was otherwise interested.

We have taken note of that the notice of the Executive Officer is dated 20.01.2015 whereas the writ petition was instituted on 20.03.2015.

Accordingly, we required the petitioner to inform us as to what caused such a delay in filing the writ petition and secondly from where the petitioner

came to know that the tender notice was issued.

The petitioner refers to a news item in the news paper Prantojyoti Dainik published from Silchar dated 14.02.2015, wherein certain allegations were

made that the Executive Officer was acting in an unscrupulous manner in the tender process. Even if that news item was the source of the petitioner,

we take note of that the news item was dated 14.02.2015, whereas the writ petition was filed on 20.03.2015.

Be that as it may, as the sole contention of the petitioner is that the tender notice was not given adequate publicity, we take note of the stand of the

respondent Silcahr Municipal Board in their affidavit in opposition filed on 18.11.2015. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit in opposition are extracted

as below:-

“7. That in regard to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition your deponent states that Annexure 1 to the writ petition is not the

correct picture inasmuch as Executive Officer of Silchar Municipality forwarded a copy of the notice dated 20.01.2015 to the Editor, Dainik

Jugasankha with a request to publish the same in the Newspaper and which was received by the Advertisement Section of Dainik Jugasankha. The

copy of the notice dated 20.01.2015 annexed as Annexure-1 in the writ petition is not the corrected version and the petitioner committed fraud in

annexing the same.

So far approval of the director, the Executive Officer vide his letter dated 31.03.2015 sought for according post facto approval in respect of works

executed between 15.09.2014 to 02.04.2015 and in reply to that Director, Municipal Administration intimated to the Executive Officer that since the

Elected Body of Silchar Municipal Board has come to the power, the newly elected body will take necessary action on the matter of settlement of

Municipal Stalls at Fatak Bazar.

That the statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the notice was not forwarded for publication by the Dainik Jugasankha is blatant lie

as the said notice was received by the Advertisement Section of said paper. It is stated that notice dated 20.01.2015 was handed over to the publisher

for advertisement and therefore it is absolutely incorrect to say that the steps taken towards matter of settlement of said market building was put on

secret as a result of which the petitioner and others bidders had not knowledge. The petitioner is put to strict proof thereof.â€​

The said stand of the respondent Silchar Municipal Board clearly shows that the notice was forwarded for publication in the Dainik Jugasankha,

which is a daily news paper from Silchar and the post-facto approval of the Director of Municipal Administration was also taken. Although the

affidavit was filed on 18.11.2015, but the petitioner had not filed any reply to the same controverting the stand that the notice inviting tender was

published in a local daily.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to continue with the interim order dated 23.03.2015, more so, in view of the fact that five years had

lapsed in between and secondly for the last five years, the petitioner could not bring anything on record that the notice inviting tender was not

published in the local newspaper as indicated in the affidavit of the respondent Silchar Municipal Board.

From the above point of view, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. The interim order passed on

23.03.2015 stands vacated.