RAJSEKHAR GOGOI versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 03-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 of Revenue-Board 
held that facts adduced by respondent about her source of finance 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. 
H 
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. 
468 
... 
.> 
-
... r -<'.' 
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. 
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. 
g 
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. 
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 
D 
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 . 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.