- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajsekhar Gogoi v. State Of Assam And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
In October 1998 the State of Assam issued a tender notice for the settlement of a single country-liquor shop. The appellant, Respondent 4, and another individual submitted tenders under Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. Rule 223 accorded preference to “educated unemployed” applicants, defined as persons who had passed the HSLC (or equivalent) examination and were without employment.
On 28-12-1998 the competent authority accepted Respondent 4’s tender. The appellant and another unsuccessful tenderer appealed to the Board of Revenue, contending that (i) Respondent 4 was not an “educated unemployed” youth and (ii) her tender lacked mandatory financial particulars. The Board allowed the appeal, holding that Respondent 4 did not satisfy the “educated unemployed” criterion and that her financial disclosures were inadequate, treating Rule 206 as mandatory.
Respondent 4 challenged the Board’s order by writ petition. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, but a Division Bench allowed Respondent 4’s letters-patent appeal, ruling that Rule 206 was not mandatory and that she qualified as an “educated unemployed” youth. The appellant sought special leave, which the Supreme Court granted, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, is mandatory, thereby requiring rejection of any tender that omits prescribed particulars.
- Consequent to the answer to Issue 1, whether Respondent 4’s tender—lacking detailed financial information—was liable to be rejected at the threshold.
- (Raised but ultimately left unanswered by the Court) Whether Respondent 4 could be categorised as an “educated unemployed” youth within the meaning of Rule 223(2).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Respondent 4 could not be treated as “educated unemployed” because she was still pursuing studies after failing the June 1998 examination and re-appearing as a non-collegiate student in March 1999. Reliance was placed on Bishnu Ram Borah v. Parag Saikia (1984) 2 SCC 488.
- Respondent 4’s tender did not disclose requisite financial particulars in Column 11 of the prescribed form; therefore, under Rule 206(2) it had to be rejected.
Respondent 4's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of Respondent 4’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bishnu Ram Borah v. Parag Saikia, (1984) 2 SCC 488; AIR 1984 SC 898 | Meaning of “educated unemployed” in excise-licence settlements | Cited by the appellant; the Supreme Court noted the citation but found it unnecessary to decide the point because it disposed of the case on Rule 206 grounds. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court confined its analysis to the validity of Respondent 4’s tender under Rule 206. The Rule, as amended in 1981, stipulates that tenders “must be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed… Tenders not containing all the particulars shall be liable to be rejected.” The Court highlighted that:
- Column 11 of the tender form requires detailed disclosure of financial capacity, including cash in hand, bank balance, security, and other assets.
- Respondent 4’s tender merely stated she would obtain financial help from family members without providing documents, affidavits, or any concrete particulars.
- Clause 10 of the tender notice further mandated full financial disclosure so the Deputy Commissioner could verify the information before settlement.
- The absence of particulars deprived the authorities of the opportunity to verify her financial capacity, contravening both the tender notice and Rule 206(2).
- Because the Rule expressly prescribes rejection for non-compliance, it is mandatory; the Division Bench erred in treating it as directory.
Given this finding, the Court found it unnecessary to examine whether Respondent 4 was an “educated unemployed” youth under Rule 223.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single-Judge decision restored.
The immediate consequence is that the settlement of the country-liquor shop in favour of Respondent 4 is invalid, and the Board of Revenue’s decision rejecting her tender stands reinstated. The judgment clarifies that post-1981 Rule 206 is mandatory and that tenders lacking prescribed particulars are liable to outright rejection. No broader precedent beyond reinforcing statutory compliance in tender processes was expressly articulated.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the settlement of a country liquor shop in favour of Respondent 4 as a result of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. In October 1998, a tender notice was issued for the settlement of one shop. The appellant along with Respondent 4 and another person filed applications in the form prescribed under Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. According to Rule 223, preference was to be given to educated unemployed. The note with regard to the said Rule stated that an educated unemployed would be one who has passed HSLC or equivalent examination and is without any employment.
4. In the order of settlement on 28-12-1998, the application of Respondent 4 was accepted. This was challenged by the appellant and another unsuccessful tenderer by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue. In the appeal, two contentions were raised — firstly, that Respondent 4 could not be treated as an educated unemployed youth within the meaning of that expression in Rule 223(2) and secondly, in the application which was filed the financial particulars had not been given by the said respondent. In support of the first contention, the case of the appellant was that Respondent 4 had appeared in the examination in June 1998 but had failed. Thereafter, she appeared as a non-collegiate student in March 1999. It was contended that this shows that Respondent 4 was pursuing her studies and, therefore, could not be regarded as falling under the category of “educated unemployed” and reliance in this behalf was placed on a decision of this Court in Bishnu Ram Borah v. Parag Saikia (1984) 2 SCC 488, AIR 1984 SC 898.
5. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with the Board coming to the conclusion that Respondent 4 could not be regarded as an educated unemployed youth and secondly, the facts adduced by the said Respondent 4 about her sources of finance were not reliable. In coming to this conclusion, it also held that provisions of Rule 206 were mandatory.
6. The decision of the Board was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the same and affirmed the decision of the Board. A letters patent appeal filed by Respondent 4 was successful. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the decision of the Board that Rule 206 was mandatory was an error apparent on the face of the record. It also held that Respondent 4 was an educated unemployed youth within the meaning of that expression in Rule 223(2).
7. For the view which we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether Respondent 4 could be regarded as an educated unemployed youth or not. It appears to us that her application should have been rejected at the threshold. We make it clear that this does not mean that we affirm the finding of the High Court that she was an educated unemployed youth.
8. Rule 206 after its amendment in 1981 reads as follows:
“206. (1) Save with the special sanction of the State Government all country shops will be settled under the tender system.
(2) The tenders must be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed by the State Government. Tenders not containing all the particulars shall be liable to be rejected.
(3) Each tender must bear a court fee stamp of Rs 24.75 or any other amount as may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
(4) Each tender shall be for a single shop, but any person may submit separate tenders for any number of shops. The tenders are not transferable from one shop to another. No shop shall be settled with anyone who has not tendered for the shop within the notified time. Whenever it is found that no tender has been received for a shop within the notified time or where a suitable person from amongst the tenderers is not found for settlement, a fresh notice shall be issued inviting tenders for such a shop; provided that a notice of ten days will be sufficient in such cases.”
It is admitted that prior to 1981 the sentence “tenders not containing all the particulars shall be liable to be rejected” occurring in sub-rule (2) of Rule 206 was not there. It is for this reason that the earlier decision of the Assam High Court had come to the conclusion that the said Rule was not mandatory especially when it did not provide for the consequence in the event of the application not being filed in accordance with the prescribed form. Column 11 of the form of tender reads as follows:
“11. Whether the tenderer will be capable of financing his business himself. Give details of source: cash in hand, bank balance, security, assets etc.”
In answer, Respondent 4 stated as under:
“Yes, I am financially capable enough to run the business. I shall get financial assistance in this respect from my father and also from my sister and sister's husband.”
9. It is clear that Respondent 4 merely made a general statement that she will receive financial assistance from her father, her sister and her sister's husband. No documents or even affidavits or any other particulars were furnished along with the tender which she had submitted. It was not indicated whether she had any cash in hand or whether she even had any bank balance. Under these circumstances, her tender had to be rejected in compliance with the provisions of Rule 206(2). There could be no occasion for a tenderer to place before the authorities at the time of settlement any particulars which were required to be given in the tender form. The need for furnishing particulars in the tender form obviously is to enable the authorities concerned to scrutinize the tender to determine financial capability of the tenderer who wants to get the benefit of Rule 223. Furthermore, in the tender notice, clause 10 states as follows:
“The tenderer for settlement of shop is required to give full information regarding his financial capacity in the tender, such information must include the details of soundness of finance, cash in hand, bank balance, security and assets etc. Such information shall be verified by the Deputy Commissioner/any other authorised person before settlement of shop to the tenderer.”
10. This clearly shows that it was imperative for a tenderer to furnish full information as required so that the same could be verified by the Deputy Commissioner or any other authorised person “before settlement of shop to the tenderer” (emphasis added). In the present case, such an opportunity was clearly denied to the authorities when Respondent 4 had not furnished the requisite particulars along with her tender.
11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that as the tender itself of Respondent 4 was liable to be rejected because of lack of particulars as stated hereinabove, no further question arises. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that Rule 206 is not mandatory. The language of the said Rule is clear and unambiguous. It not only says that the tenders must be in their required form but also stipulates the consequence of non-compliance thereto, the consequence being that the tenders not containing all the particulars “shall be liable to be rejected”.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the decision of the Division Bench which is impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the Single Judge restored.
Alert