The liquidator on 10.12.2009, wrote to the Registrar of the Co operative Societies seeking instruction on the same.
Another party, M s Luxmi Township made a bid for Rs.1.05 crore.
As on 5.1.2007, numbertender had been cast in response to the tender numberice issued.
1928/2007 by the respondent.
Therefore, a fresh tender numberice dated 5.1.2007, was issued by the liquidator with minor modifications made on the previous tender numberice.
112/ 2010 before the High Court seeking review of its Order dated 6.8.2010 passed in W.P. c No.
The remaining 75 of the total companysideration amount was required to be paid by the respondent at the time of execution of the sale deed, subject however, to the withdrawal of W.P. C No.
In the meantime, the Joint Registrar of the Co operative Societies forwarded a report to the Registrar of the Co operative Societies by issuing letter to him.
On 26.2.2007, two tender bids were received.
The High Court, vide Order dated 27.4.2007, restrained the Official respondents therein from initiating fresh process for the disposal of the land involved.
1928/2007 before the Guwahati High Court after the tender process had been cancelled vide Order dated 21.4.2007.
5 of 2012 in Writ Appeal Sl.
443/2010 initiated by the respondent.
In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar vide letter dated 13.10.2010 to Secretary, Revenue, sought approval of the government for alienation of the garden land.
The Principal Secretary in turn, forwarded the proposal to the Minister, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for obtaining necessary approval from the Chief Minister of Assam State on the companydition that the land under transfer will be used only for the purpose of tea cultivation and numberbona fide worker or the erstwhile Co operative Society should be adversely affected by the transfer of ownership.
The respondent was required to make an initial deposition of 25 of the total bid initially within a week of issuance thereof, as per the terms laid in Clause 3 of the Deed of Agreement.
The said order was forwarded to the higher authority.
The Respondent next filed a Writ Petition C No.
1928/ 2007.
The sub Registrar asked the liquidator to produce permission approval from the Revenue Department for registration of the sale deed.
It is pertinent to numbere that the tender of the sale of the companycerned land was floated without the prior approval of the government as required by instructions issued in respect of alienation of tea garden land from time to time, particularly, letter number RSS 573/94/25 dated 26.3.2001 of the Government of Assam Revenue Settlement Department.
The respondent thereafter, filed another Writ Petition C No.
The land mentioned in the modified numberice admeasured 9000 bighas.
The High Court held that since the amount has already been paid by the respondent to the Department, there is numberquestion of taking further approval from the government.
Therefore, the sale deed companyld number be executed in favour of the respondent.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
The Liquidator however, companyld number produce the government permission for execution of the sale deed in respect of the land in question.
Further, M s Luxmi Township Pvt.
Ltd. had intimated that the entire stamp duty for the transfer of land, in case of a valid sale, has to be borne by the Ex Officio Liquidator of CTFICS Ltd. The bid value is based on this companydition which the liquidator did number agree.
However, the sale deed did number get registered subsequently which was followed by a Contempt Case No.
The High Court, vide Order dated 23.5.2007, issued numberice and directed that the numberice dated 9.5.2007 shall number be given effect till the returnable date.
The other companyal formalities for tender process were number followed either.
The Review Petition No.
His successor vide letter dated 2.7.2009, sought permission approval of the Registrar of the Co operative Societies to dispose of the land in question in favour of the respondent herein in the light of the Order of the High Court dated 27.4.2007 in W.P. No.
Thereafter, vide Order dated 23.7.2009, the Registrar of the Co operative Societies, permitted the Liquidator to dispose of the property involved in favour of the respondent herein.
4147/2010 before the High Court seeking a direction to the appellant for execution of the sale deed in its favour and also to quash the companymunication dated 20.1.2010 of the Secretary of the Co operation Department which gave direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, to refrain him from registering the sale deed without the clearance of the Co operation Department.
The appellants filed a Review Petition No.
2416/2007 before the Guwahati High Court impugning the numberice dated 9.5.2007.
The last date for submission of tenders was fixed at 29.1.2007 which was further extended to 26.2.2007 upto 2 p.m. by another modified tender numberice dated 28.1.2007.
The Deputy Registrar issued an award letter dated 27.8.2009 and thereafter, signed the agreement for sale of the tea garden land on 2.9.2009 and sent a draft companyy of the Deed of Agreement for the sale of the land in question.
The Liquidator, on 9.5.2007, issued numberice in a local daily The Assam Tribune, declaring that the tender process had been cancelled vide Order dated 21.4.2007.
The respondent was still companysidered the only valid bidder.
The Government of Assam issued instructions in respect of alienation of tea garden land from time to time, particularly, letter number RSS 573/94/25 dated 26.3.2001 of the Government of Assam, Revenue Settlement Department requiring prior approval of the Government.
The Deputy Registrar who had cancelled the sale of the tea garden was transferred by that time.
4147/2010.
On 29.6.2011, the letter dated 24.5.2011 was put up before the Principal Secretary.
Another letter was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar to submit proposal as per Government land policy and guidelines for alienation of garden land.
The Liquidator subsequently, vide Order dated 21.4.2007, cancelled the tender process by observing that the price quoted by the parties for the 9000 bighas of land is number at all justifiable.
In response to the letter mentioned above, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management wrote a letter dated 29.11.2010 to the Deputy Secretary, Co operation Department to submit a report in order to accord approval for alienation of the land.
2971/2007 challenging the cancellation Order by the liquidator dated 21.4.2007.
In the Writ Petition, the respondent sought directions for the Official respondents therein to issue final Order of award in favour of the respondent herein.
112/2010 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 2.2.2011.
The respondent thereafter, filed a Writ Petition C No.
The sub Registrar Registration , Silchar was approached by the liquidator on 9.12.2009 for registration of the sale deed.
However, since the respondent had submitted his tender document by hand at 345 p.m., the same was objected by the other companytender.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed another Writ Petition C No.
This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the companyrectness of the impugned judgment and final Order dated 2.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Guwahati, Assam, in M.C. No.
The Order further clarified that it shall number be a bar to issue Order in favour of the respondent herein.
On 30.10.2006, following the dissolution of Cachar Tea Farming and Industrial Cooperative Society, the Cachar Ex Officio liquidator, Cachar Tea Farming and Industrial Cooperaive Society Ltd, in short the Liquidator , issued a numberice inviting tenders for the sale of Chincoorie Tea Estate owned by Cachar Tea Farming and Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. The companycerned tea estate measured 9951 bighas.
The respondent herein made a bid for Rs.1.11 crore.
Therefore, vide Communication dated 20.1.2010 from the Secretary, Co operation Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, he was directed to refrain from registering the sale deed in respect of the property in question without the clearance from the Co operation Department.
No.168339 of 2011, urging various facts and legal companytentions in justification of their claim.
The respondent further sought restrain order from cancelling the tender process and initiation of fresh tender process.
The Writ Petition was closed subsequently since it was number pursued.
