2020 (12) TMI 884 - HC - Indian Laws

Adequacy of Documents - Declaration of technical bid of the respondent No.5 submitted for settlement of M.G. Bazar Foreign Liquor Shop No.4 - HELD THAT - This court cannot be oblivious of its jurisdictional limit in the matter of the judicial review - The court does not have omnibus powers to decide a decision on the merit of the decision of the competent authority. Its power is limited to examine the process to see whether the fair play principles at that stage was conformed to. The respondents No.1, 2, 3 4 cannot take a stand that they can depart from the standard by which they professed its action to be judged. They must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Thus what the respondents No.1, 2 3 4 have asserted in their reply that the Clauses 4(ii) (iii) of the DNIT are not essential and mandatory in nature is not accepted by us. That plea is rejected. But we find that even if that plea is rejected their decision may not be affected substantially. What we have observed that the respondent No.5 has clearly stated that he does not have the immovable property but the said respondent has submitted the statement in respect of the bank balance and the supporting documents issued by the Bank Manager of the bank where the respondent No.5 maintained his savings and there is no dispute that the said documents were duly notorized. What is required in terms of the Clauses 4(iii) of the DNIT is uploading of a no objection certificate from the owner of the building along with supporting documents duly attested by the Notary Public. It is an admitted fact that no objection certificate and touji record had been uploaded with the technical bid. Regarding the mismatch of number of touji is concerned the official respondents have clarified their position by stating that there was a typographical mistake. When the document itself is present the tendering authority can waive such objection by taking into consideration the document itself. 15 So far the objection relating to Rule 26(3) of the Tripura Excise Rules is concerned what is relevant is the present status of the building not what was earlier at the time of opening of the touji. Touji cannot be treated as a perennial document for status of the building - The official respondents did not accept the field inquiry report as that showed the premises as a whole to measured at 407.745 square feet and it was an RCC building. As such no legal wrath did surface so far. Neither from the reply nor from the records so produced it can be gathered how the official respondents had dealt with the said observation as regards non-availability of any permission order in the physical verification report. This is a serious issue cannot be simply brushed aside - the challenge structured upon non-compliance of the requirement of Clauses 4(ii) (iii) of the DNIT is bound to fall through. But we cannot say that the official respondents had taken all relevant consideration for coming to that decision. The official respondents were bound to take a decision on the observation made by the filed verification committee as reproduced before opening of the financial bid inasmuch as the State cannot extend its patronage of any form to any illegal act in whatever form. Thus they were under obligation to take a decision on the observation of the said designated committee in respect of non-production of the sanction for construction of the building as required under law. The non- production may mean absence of sanction of plan. In that event the construction is bound to termed as grossly unauthorized and the state patronage in the form of granting licence to run a foreign liquor shop should not have been extended. The respondent No.3 shall take a fresh call and decide on the observation made by the field verification committee as constituted by him. Till then the decision to grant the licnece to the respondent No.5 shall be put on hold. If the respondent No.3 arrived at a decision that the said construction relating to the proposed shop had been carried out unauthorizedly and there had been no sanction of plan for such construction on the date when the bid was uploaded in response to the DNIT he shall take a decision appropriate in the circumstances - Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the technical bid submitted by respondent No.5.
2. Compliance with Clauses 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the DNIT.
3. Adequacy of documents submitted by respondent No.5.
4. Financial ability and immovable property status of respondent No.5.
5. Suitability of the proposed shop premises.
6. Jurisdiction and limits of judicial review.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the technical bid submitted by respondent No.5:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents to accept the technical bid of respondent No.5 for the M.G. Bazar Foreign Liquor Shop No.4, citing deficiencies in the tender documents. The petitioner observed that the documents uploaded by respondent No.5 were not in conformity with the DNIT requirements.

2. Compliance with Clauses 4(ii) and 4(iii) of the DNIT:
Clause 4(ii) required a statement of immovable property and current bank balance to prove financial ability. Clause 4(iii) required details of the proposed premises, including a no objection certificate from the owner, duly attested by a Notary. The petitioner argued that respondent No.5 failed to comply with these clauses. However, the court noted that the respondent No.5 had submitted the required documents, including a bank certificate showing a balance of ?50,00,630/-, and a no objection certificate from the owner.

3. Adequacy of documents submitted by respondent No.5:
The petitioner contended that the documents submitted by respondent No.5 were inadequate, particularly pointing out discrepancies in the area of the shop premises and the lack of a rent agreement. The court found that the documents submitted by respondent No.5, including the bank certificate and no objection certificate, were in compliance with the DNIT requirements.

4. Financial ability and immovable property status of respondent No.5:
The petitioner questioned the financial ability of respondent No.5, citing a low income in the previous year and sudden large deposits in the bank account. The court observed that the DNIT did not mandate a specific amount of immovable property or bank balance. The financial ability could be assessed through bank transactions, and respondent No.5 had provided a bank certificate showing a substantial balance.

5. Suitability of the proposed shop premises:
The petitioner argued that the proposed shop premises did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(3) of the Tripura Excise Rules, which stipulates that the premises must be pucca or semi-pucca. The field verification report indicated that the premises was a two-storied RCC building, although initially recorded as a KVT (kutcha viti tin shed). The court noted that the current status of the building, as verified, was compliant with the rules.

6. Jurisdiction and limits of judicial review:
The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction in matters of judicial review, focusing on whether the process was fair and adhered to the standards set by the authority. The court cited precedents, including the principle that executive authorities must rigorously adhere to their professed standards. The court concluded that while the respondent No.5 had complied with the DNIT requirements, the official respondents needed to address the observation regarding the unauthorized construction of the proposed shop premises.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent No.3 to re-evaluate the field verification report's observation about the unauthorized construction of the proposed shop premises. The decision to grant the license to respondent No.5 was put on hold pending this re-evaluation. The petitioner was allowed to continue operating the shop in the interim. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →