Ruli Ahmed vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors

The Court proceedings have been conducted through video-conference.

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport

Department.

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was given on lease a vessel namely, ""Pontoon Ding-Dinga"" initially for a period of 3 (three) years and

subsequently for 15 (fifteen) years and the term of lease is going to expire on 31.05.2021.

The grievance of the petitioner raised before this Court is that during this process the petitioner had to invest a huge amount running into about 86

lakhs for undertaking major structural repairing works to make the said vessel floating and functional, which according to the petitioner, is part of the

maintenance as according to the petitioner it would be the responsibility of the petitioner to keep it floating and in good condition as a lessee. Though

the petitioner was expecting that the lease period would be extended further, contrary to his expectation the authorities decided not to extend it. It has

been submitted that in such an event, the petitioner unless he be reimbursed with the said cost will incur a huge loss as the petitioner is yet to recoup

her investment by way of maintenance costs and as such, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for extending the lease term.

On the other hand, this prayer has been objected by Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, contending that the petitioner was

awarded the said contract to run and manage the said vessel without floating any tender and the Government has now decided to lease the same by

floating a public tender to get higher public revenue and no interim order may be passed at this stage which will come in the way of the authorities to

float a public tender.

Ld. Counsel for the State has submitted that the Government has already taken the decision in principle to float the tender. However, the tender

could not be floated till now because of the Covid-19 situation.

It has accordingly been prayed that no order be passed for stay of any tender process which the authorities are contemplating to initiate.

Mr. Choudhury, Ld. Senior Counsel, however, clarifies that as on today the petitioner is not making any prayer for stay of any such proposed tender

process as the same has not been the issued. However, he submits that at least the petitioner may be allowed to continue with the business as no new

person has yet been appointed so far.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court, of course, at this stage is not passing any stay order to prevent the authorities from floating any tender as being planned by the

authorities.

However, since the tender is yet to be floated, in the meantime, the petitioner may be allowed to continue to operate the said vessel even after

31.05.2021 on the same earlier terms and conditions until further order.

List the matter after 4 (four) weeks. JUDGE Comparing Assistant