Holding

Rule 206(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, is mandatory; a tender that does not contain all prescribed financial particulars must be rejected.

Summary

The case concerned the settlement of a country liquor shop in Assam under the tender system prescribed by the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. Respondent No. 4, an educated unemployed applicant, submitted a tender but failed to provide the detailed financial particulars required by Rule 206(2). The Board of Revenue rejected the tender, a decision upheld by a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that Rule 206 was not mandatory. The Supreme Court examined whether the rule’s language made furnishing all particulars obligatory and whether the lack of such details justified rejection. It held that Rule 206(2) is mandatory and that a tender lacking the required financial particulars must be rejected, irrespective of the applicant’s status as an educated unemployed. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 206(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, mandating the furnishing of all prescribed particulars in a tender, is a mandatory provision whose non‑compliance leads to automatic rejection.
Whether the lack of detailed financial particulars in the tender of respondent No. 4 justifies rejection of the tender.
Whether respondent No. 4 qualifies as an "educated unemployed" under Rule 223(2) (though the Court deemed this issue unnecessary to decide).

Subjects

Tender rejectionAssam Excise RulesRule 206Financial particularsCountry liquor shop settlementEducated unemployedMandatory provision

Judgment

A RAJSEKHAR GOGOi
v.
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

MAY 3, 2001

B [B.N. KIRPAL AND RUMA PAL, JJ.]

Assam Excise Rules, 1945 : Rules 206 and 223.

Country Liquor Shop-Tender-Failure to furnish requisite
C particulars-Rejection of tender.

Country liquor' shop-Tender for settlement-Award in favour of
...
respondent ·No. 4 an educated unemployed-Respondent No. 4 not giving
details of her financial capability in the Tender Form-Merely stating that
she will be getting financial assistance from father and other relatives-No
D details given about cash in hand, bank balance or security assets etc. so as
to enable the Deputy Commissioner to verifY financial capability-Award of
tender successfully challenged by appellant before Board ofRevenue-Board
held that facts adduced by respondent about her source offinance were not
reliable-Rule 206 is mandatory-Decision of Board of Revenue affirmed by
E Single Judge of High Court-Division Bench held that the decision of the
Board that Rule 206 was mandatory was an error apparent on the face of
the record-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held 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 tender-The
tender. of respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected because of lack of such
F particulars-Held Rule 206 is mandatory.

Bishnu Ram Borah and Anr. v. Parag Saikia and Ors., AIR (1984) SC
898, referred to.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3592 of
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2000 of the Gauhati High Court
in W.A. No. 349of1999. .>

P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta and R. Rahim for the Appellants.
H 468
RAJSEKHAR GOGOi v. STATE 469
Raju Ramachandran, Ms. Krishna Sarma, J.R Luwang, Parimal Prasad A
and Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Special leave granted.
g
The dispute in the present case partains to the settlement of a country
liquor shop in favour of respondent No. 4 as a result of the decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court.

In October 1998, a tender notice was issued for the settlement of one
shop. The appellant along with respondent No. 4 and another person filed C
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.
D
In the order of settlement on 28th December, 1998, the application of
respondent No. 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 No. 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 E
financial particulars had not been given by the said respondent. In support
of the first contention, the case of the appellant was that respondent No. 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 No. 4 was pursuing her studies and, therefore, F
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 and another v. Parag Saikia and others, AIR (1984) SC 898.
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with the Board coming
to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 could not be regarded as an educated G'
unemployed youth and secondly the facts adduced by said respondent No.
4 about her sources of finance were not reliable. In coming to this conclusion,
it also held that provisions of Rule 206 were mandatory.
... r -<'.'
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 H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R

A affirmed the decision of the Board. A letters patent appeal filed by respondent
No. 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 No. 4 was an educated
unemployed youth within the meaning of that expression in Rule 223 (2).

B . For the view which we are taki1.1g, it is not necessary to go into the
question as to whether respondent No. 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
C youth.

Rule 206 after its amendment in 1981 reads as follows:

"206. (l) Save with the special sanction of the State Government
...
all country shops will be settled under the tender system .
.n (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 sta~p of RS. 24. 7 5 or any
other ~mount as may be prescribed by the State Government from time
E to time.

(4) Each tender shall be for a single shop, but any person may
submit separate tenders for any number of shops. The'tender are not
transferable form one shop to another.· No shop shall be settled with
any ·one who has not tendered for the shop within the notified time.
F Whenever it is found that no tender has been received for a shop
within the notified time or whete a suitable person from amongst the
tenderers is not fourid 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.", .

G It is admitted'that prior to 1981 tlie sentence '"'f~nders 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 Fuel was not mandatory r- ,-
especially .~hen it did not provide for the consequence in the event of the
H application not be~ng filed in accordance with the.prescribed Form. Column
RAJSEKHAR GOGOi v. STATE 471

No. 11 of the Form of Tender reads as follows : A
"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 No. 4 stated as under : B
"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."

It is clear that respondent No. 4 merely made a general statement that C
she will receive financial assistance from her father, her sister and 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 D
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 .E
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 F
verified by the Deputy Commissioner/any other authorised person
before settlement of shop to the tenderer."

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 G
the tenderer' (emphasis added). In the present case, such opportunity was
clearly denied to the authorties when respondent No. 4 had not furnished the ·
requisite particulars along with her tender.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that as the tender itself of respondent
No. 4 was liable to be rejected because of lack of particulars as stated H

.,
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 'shall be liable to be rejected'.

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.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.