Sadhuram Singnar vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Kemprai, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 13.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.4 whereby it was informed that the Authority of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu, had accepted the highest bid amount of Rs.15,50,000/- against the m3 Government value for Rs.8,40,000/- for 6000 sand for the period of 2 years offered by the Respondent No.7 against the Jamuna River Sand Mahal at Upper Hatipura sand contract lease area under Karbi Anglong West Division, Diphu.

The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that a Short Tender Notice was issued by the Respondent No.6 for settlement of various mining contracts. Amongst the mining contract areas, one of such area was Jamuna River Sand Mahal, Hatipura. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process. The tender evaluation being carried out, it would found that the Petitioner's bid was found technically competent as well as the highest bidder. However, the Respondent No.3 has written the impugned letter dated 13.03.2023 to the Respondent No.4 for settling the contract in favour of the Respondent No.7 by incorrectly mentioning that the Respondent No.7 was the highest bidder. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.

This Court duly takes note of that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 24.03.2023 issued notice and further directed the maintenance of the status quo with regard to the matter of allotment of the sand mahal in question. The writ petition thereupon has been listed today after more than 3 years.

This Court finds it very relevant to take note of that the Respondent Authorities have not filed their affidavit, and under such circumstances, it shall be deemed that the Respondent Authorities duly admit the statements made in the writ petition by applying the doctrine of non-traverse.

This Court also finds it relevant to observe that in the comparative statement, the Petitioner was the highest bidder and technically competent. However, the Respondent No.3 had written the letter to the Respondent No.4 by making an incorrect statement that the Respondent No. 7 was the highest bidder. This Court also takes note of that in view of the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench on 24.03.2023 whereby there is a direction for status quo, there has been no settlement so granted in favour of the Respondent No.7. The impugned communication also mentions that the settlement was proposed to be granted to the Respondent No. 7 for a period of two years. Under such circumstances, the impugned communication issued by the Respondent No.3 to the respondent No. 4 dated 13.03.2023 cannot be sustained in law.

Be that as it may, this Court also finds it relevant to observe that the period for which the Short Tender Notice was issued had expired, and under such circumstances, there would now be a requirement for the issuance of a fresh tender for settlement of the said sand mahal.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-