WP(C) 519/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms U. Ba ruah, learned Standing counsel for the ASTC and Mr. RP Sarma, learned Sr. couns el appearing for the respondents No. 4,5,6 and 7. Upon called by the court, the Corporation as well as the private respondents have filed their counter. The case of the petitioner interalia is that he is the petty bus inessman and engaged himself in earning his livelihood by doing such petty busin ess after obtaining Graduation in the year 1996. Upon coming to know that the re spondents/authorities are inclined to allot a space at ASTC Station Complex at P altanbazar for running a toilet block, he approached the respondent No.3 in the early part of January, 2008 and got such proposal of the ASTC. The petitioner s ubsequently found that vide impugned order dated 29.1.08 such space measuring 15 X 20 ft. has been allotted at the ASTC Station Complex, Paltanbazar in favou r of the private respondents for running the toilet block on the basis of their applications without calling for any tender for a period of three years on cert ain terms and conditions. The grievances of the petitioner is that he being one of the aspirants for the job could have applied for the same had there been any tender notice issued for the same but the work has been allotted without issuing any tender notice by private negotiation which has adversely affected his righ t to participate in the process of settlement of the same. The Corporation in its counter has admitted that the private res pondents were allotted the aforesaid space for construction of toilet block on t he basis of the application filed by them without issuing any tender notice. It is further contended that as per existing practice the Corporation is giving all otment for construction of the toilet block in the ASTC complex for running th e same on the basis of the application received from different parties for earni ng the revenue. However, in case of contract involving major construction s/ di sposal of buses/scraps etc. tender process is to be resorted to and accordingly , the present case falling within the category, no tender was issued. The privat e respondents also in their affidavit have admitted that the impugned order has been in their favour on the basis of the application and no tender has been iss ued to them. They further pleaded that other toilet block could not be successf ully operated as the public refuse to pay the money and as such the respondents were considered to be best person to successfully operate the same and accordin gly the work was allotted to them. Both the learned counsel for the respondents have rested their a rgument referring the statements made in the respective counter. I have consider ed the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position in the instant case is that the impugned o rder dated 29.1.08 has been passed allotting the space measuring 15 X 20 ft. at ASTC Station Complex at Paltanbazar on lease basis to the private respondents wi thout calling for any tender notice on the basis of the application filed by the private respondents on which recommendation has been made by the department its elf. For the said toilet block monthly charge/fee is fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per m onth excluding the electricity charges. The monthly fee has to be paid in every 1st week of each month to the Managing Director, ASTC, Guwahati. That apart, fro m the monthly rent an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been fixed to be paid by the re spondents as Registraton fee which is non refundable in the shape of Bank Draft duly pleaded to the Managing Director, ASTC. Construction of the proposed toile t was allowed to be done as per plan and estimate of the Corporation by the less ee and the said construction cost which would be incurred by the respondents s hall be treated as advance charge/fee subject to maximum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. The terms of agreement will be three years from the date of allotment. The lice nce charge/fee will be enhanced in every year @ 10% on the existing monthly fee . The aforesaid process and nature of allotment makes it abundantl y clear that the aforesaid contract does not fall within the meaning of non-oper ational revenue of the contract as projected by the Corporation. Mr. RP Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the private resp ondents has fairly submits that in the matter of distribution of the public pl ace to be used by the public, the authority is duty bound to allot such state la rgesse by resorting to tender system. Distribution of State largesse must be ma de by resorting to tender process and it must be fair and without arbitrariness in the process and such contracts are allotted in a fair and transparent manner. Tender system is the rule for allotting the State largesse. That apart, tender system provides transparency and excludes arbitrariness in the matter of partic ipation in the process. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner has made out a well framed case for interference of the impugned order in exercise of certiorari j urisdiction of this court and accordingly, the impugned order of allotment dat ed 29.1.08 stands set aside and quashed. The Corporation would allot/settle the space by issuing tender notice in the l ocal dailies so that all the intending candidates get opportunity to participat e in the tender process and know the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the issuing authority. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.