WP(C) 1190/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. BARUAH In this writ petition the allotment order No. ASTC/CE/66/91/PT-I dated 19-02-201 1 (Annexure-7) allotting the parking place within the premises of ASTC, Station Complex, Bilashipara in favour of the respondent No. 5 is put under challenge. 2. By virtue of an agreement executed on 7-1-2008 in between the pe titioners and the respondent authorities, a vacant space within the premises of ASTC Station Complex, Bilashipara was allowed to be used on payment of monthly f ee of Rs. 4,000/- for parking four wheelers to the petitioners herein and three other persons for a period of three years from the date of agreement. The petiti oners used this parking place on and from 10-1-2008. Before expiry of the lease period, the petitioners submitted a representation on 6-12-2010 with the respond ent No. 2 for extension of the lease period. However, such representation did no t find any consideration from the authorities concerned and accordingly by lette r dated 6-1-2011 intimated the petitioners that the Management of the ASTC was n ot in favour of the renewal of the agreement. The petitioners were directed by t he aforesaid letter to vacate the space on or before 9-1-2011. In the meantime r espondent No. 3 herein floated a quotation in the daily newspaper The Sentinel dated 25-1-2011 inviting sealed quotations for allotment of the parking place o n lease basis indicating therein that the quotations would be received up to 27- 1-2011. In the quotation it was also indicated that intended persons may collect detail information from the office of the respondent No. 3 from 17-1-2011 to 25 -1-2011. The aforesaid quotation being published in the newspaper in an unnotice able space, it did not come to the notice of the petitioners nor to others for w hich the petitioners were unable to submit quotation. The respondent No. 5 being the only person to submit the quotation per advertisement, the respondent autho rities, respondent No. 3 in particular, by impugned order allotted the parking p lace in his favour, which is now on challenge. 3. The petitioners contended that only two days were granted by the respondent authority(s) to submit sealed quotations from the intending parties that too publishing the same in 25th January 2011 issue of the The Sentinel in an inconspicuous space of the newspaper. It is also contended by the petitioner s that the time allowed to collect information from the office of the respondent No. 3 expired on the date of publication of the quotation in the daily newspape r The Sentinel . Thus, the intending parties were not opportuned to collect inf ormation from the office of the respondent No. 3 since time expired on 25-1-2011 . Therefore, petitioners contended that the manner in which the sealed quotation s were invited is devoid of norms and the rules, which deprived the intending pa rties from submitting quotations for allotment of the parking space. Though a re trospective effect was given on and from 17-1-2011 to 25-1-2011, the quotation b eing published on 25th January, 2011 issue, the intending parties could not avai l the opportunity of collecting requisite information from the office of the res pondent No. 3. On this ground the petitioners pray for setting aside of the impu gned order made in favour of the respondent No. 5. 4. Respondents resisted this writ petition by filing counter affida vit. Respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied invitation of quotat ions indicating 27-1-2011 as the last date of submission of the quotations for a llotment of the parking space within premises of the ASTC Complex Bilasipara. It is also contended by the respondents that in the quotation notice published on 25-1-2011, the daily newspaper The Sentinal that intending parties were given opportunity to collect the requisite information from the office of the responde nts from 17-1-2011 to 25-1-2011. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the res pondent authority(s) received 3 nos. of quotations and the quotation of the resp ondent No. 5 being in higher side, the parking place was allotted in his favour for a period of three years from the date of allotment. Further the respondents also contended in their counter affidavit that the notice inviting quotation for allotment of the parking space issued by the respondent No. 3 on 17-1-2011 was hanged in the office notice board for inspection and to the knowledge of the int ending parties. The answering respondents, therefore, contended that such sealed quotations were not invited in the manner as indicated for extraneous considera tion and to deprive other persons from contesting such allotment. 5. We have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitione r, Mr. A.K. Hussain and Mr. S.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents at length. 6. Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners argued that the manner in which the sealed quotations were invi ted from the intending parties is beyond all norms of inviting quotations. The a dvertisement was published in the 25th January, 2011 issue of The Sentinel fix ing 27-1-2011 as last date of submission of the quotations. It was also indicate d therein that quotations would be opened on the same date. The opportunity that has been indicated for collection of information from the office of the respond ent No. 3 on and from 17-1-2011 to 25-1-2011 could not be utilized by the intend ing parties on account of publication of the quotation on 25th January, 2011 iss ue of the Sentinel . More over, the claim of the respondents that the quotation was published in the notice board cannot also be accepted in view of non-filing of any affidavit to that effect supporting by documents. Mr. Biswas, learned co unsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that such course was adopted to deprive the intending eligible parties from contesting the allotment with an ult erior motive. By inviting sealed quotations in the manner as indicated, a large number of intending parties were deprived from contesting the allotment of the p arking place. Though the quotation was floated in the daily newspaper, The Sent inel , the same did not come to the notice of the intending parties, the same be ing published in an inconspicuous space of the newspaper. Mr. Biswas, therefore, on these grounds contended that the allotment order made in favour of the respo ndent No. 5 cannot sustain in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that such notice inviting sealed quotations was also hanged in the office notice boa rd for inspection. The aforesaid notice inviting sealed quotations was hanged on the notice board on 17-1-2011 according to the respondents’ counsel. There was no attempt on the part of the respondents to publish the notice inviting sealed quotations in the daily newspaper for notice of all persons interested giving re asonable time to submit quotations after obtaining requisite information. Only o n 25-1-2011 the notice was published in the daily newspaper indicating 27-1-2011 as the last date of submission of quotations and opening of the quotations so t o be received till that date. The learned counsel for the respondents in order t o substantiate hanging of the notice in the office notice board on 17-1-2011 fai led to place any evidence that the notice was actually hung on 17-1-2011 for ins pection of the intending parties. The respondents also failed to place before th is court any order of the officer concerned, who might have ordered the hanging of the notice in the official notice board inviting sealed quotations. 8. From the meticulous scrutiny of the facts appearing in the face of the records, it is noticed that the respondents published the notice inviting sealed quotations on 25-1-2011 affording two days time to the intending candida tes to submit sealed quotations for the allotment of the parking place. It also appears to this court that publication of the notice was made in an inconspicuou s space of the newspaper, which might not come to the notice of the intending pa rties. That apart, the respondents also failed to place any evidence regarding h anging of the quotation in the office notice board inviting sealed quotations fr om the interested parties on 17-1-2011. These facts in combination give rise an inference that sealed quotations were invited indicating a time frame of two day s with some ulterior motive. Therefore, the allotment order impugned herein that made in favour of the respondent No. 5 would not be sustainable. The allotment order therefore, cannot sustain in law and it is liable to be set aside and quas hed. It is accordingly done so. 9. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. 10. It is made clear that the respondents would not be precluded fro m inviting sealed quotations from the intending parties, while doing so, the res pondent authorities shall adhere to all norms of inviting sealed quotation.