Version with DOI and citation guidelines Editorial Principles

A report by the Guṭhī Jā̃ca Aḍḍā re the tender process of the gambling license at the market square of Asana (VS 1959)

ID: K_0499_0044


Edited and translated by Simon Cubelic in collaboration with Rajan Khatiwoda
Created: 2016-10-13; Last modified: 2018-06-15
For the metadata of the document, click here

Published by Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal, Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. Published by the courtesy of the National Archives, Kathmandu. The copyright of the facsimile remains with the Nepal Rashtriya Abhilekhalaya (National Archives, Government of Nepal). All use of the digital facsimiles requires prior written permission by the copyright holder. See Terms of Use.
The accompanying edition, translation/synopsis and/or commentary are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License CCby-SA.

Abstract

In this report from the Guṭhī Jā̃ca Aḍḍā the matter of concern is a tender process for assigning the gambling license for the market square at Asana for the years VS 1959-1961 (1902-1904 CE). It is reported that a certain Meheramāna Nhuche Pradhāna offered 35 mohara rupaiyā̃ per annum for the license and submitted a promissory note (kabula) of his bid accordingly. In the second step, a notice of Meheramāna’s bid was posted. On the sixth day of the seven-day deadline, a man called Kṛṣṇavīra submitted a bid which topped Meheramāna’s bid by two mohara rupaiyā̃. However, Meheramāna quickly went Kṛṣṇavīra three mohara rupaiyā̃ better. It seems that Kṛṣṇavīra then dropped out of the competition, since the report mentions that a new notice with Meheramāna’s bid had been posted for another six days. After this, another notice with a one-day deadline was posted, to give prospective bidders one last chance. When no other bids were received, the license was granted to Meheramāna for 40 mohara rupaiyā̃ per annum.



Diplomatic edition

[1r]

1श्री­अन्नपूर्णा­
2१­

[seal]

1गुठी­जाच­अडावाट­

1उप्राँन्त­असन्‌­¯ ¯ १¯का­गुठीको­४­कील्लाभीत्रको­डवुली­लगत्‌‌मा­दर्ता­नभयाको­र­जुवा­[?]
2का­साल्मा­सो­डवुलीमा­पासा­थापेवावत्‌­मो­रु­३५­का­दर्ले­ठेकदारवाट­लीषायाको­छ­जुवा­[?]
3का­साल्मा­र­नफुकेका­साल्मा­स्मेत्‌‌को­वर्षको­ठेक­मो­रु­३५­का­दर्ले­तीर्ने­गरि­मेरा­नाउमा­[?]
4नदपुर्जि­हवस्‌­भनी­सहर­काठमाडौ­कसुवीलाछिको­हाल्‌­टुं­वाहाल­वस्ने­मेहेरमा[?]­न्हु
5छे­प्रधानले­जाहेरी­मुचुल्का­लेषीदीयावमोजीम्‌­येस­अडावाट­रपोट्­जाहेर­गर्दा­ऐनवमो
6जीम्‌­सालवसाल्मा­ताँसपुर्जि­गरिदीनु­भनि­मुल्की­अडावाट­तोक­लेषेकोमा­हुकुम्‌­मर्जि­ल
7गा⟪ये⟫त्‌­सदर­भै­सो­रपोट्­येस­अडामा­आयाको­र­नीज­मेहेरमानले­यही­५९­साल­वैसाष­वदी­१­[?]­[?]
8न्देषी­६१­साल­चैत्र­सुदि­१५­रोजतक्‌­वर्ष­३­मा­सालसाल्को­ठेक­सालसालका­कार्तिक­मैन्हा­भ
9र्मा­कवोलवमोजीम्‌‌को­मो­रु­३५­का­दर्ले­सो­वर्ष­३­को­मो­रु­१०५­तीरुंला­भंन्या­कवोलनामा­
10लेषीदीयाको­हुनाले­नीजका­नाउमा­वढावढ्‌को­७­दीने­म्यादमा­मासीदीयामा­सो­म्याद­नगुज्र
11दै­६­दीन्का­दींको­सोही­ठेक­मो­रु­३५­मा­मो­रु­२­वढि­ज्मा­वर्ष­१­को­ठेक­मो­रु­३७­का­दर्ले­लेषी
12दीयाका­वर्ष­३­को­ठेक­मो­रु­१११­तीरुंला­भंन्या­वटु­टोल­वस्ने­वैद­कृस्नवीरले­येस­अडा
13मा­कवोलनामा­लेषीदीयाको­तेस्मा­वर्षको­मो­रु­३­वढि­मो­रु­४०­का­दर्ले­सो­वर्ष­३­को­
14मो­रु­१२०­सालसाल्को­ठेक­सालसाल्का­चैत्र­मैन्हाभर्मा­चुक्ती­गरि­वुझाउंला­भन्या­नीजै­
15मेहेरमान­न्हुछे­प्रधानले­कवोलनामा­लेषी­यस­अडामा­दीयाको­हुनाले­नीजको­नाउमा­
16५९­साल­भाद्र­वदि­४­रोज­७­मा­वढावढ्‌को­७­दीने­म्याद­तासीदीयाकोमा­६­दीनसम्म­
17पनी­सो­ठेकमा­वढि­कसैले­कवोल­गर्न­नआया⟪को⟫­⟪हुनाले­जाहेर­गरी­नीकासा­भै­आया­⟫वमोजीम्‌­वाकी­१­दीने­म्यादको­पुर्जि­टा[?]
18नु­पर्दा­आजका­मीतीमा­तासीदीयाको­छ­तसर्थ­सो­ठेकमा­वढि­कवोल­गरि­लेषीया[?]­
19रकम­लीनाको­कसैका­मनसुवा­भया­आज्का­दीनभर्मा­कवोलनामा­लेषन­आउन्या­का
20म­गर­म्याद­गुज्र्यो­भन्या­नीज­मेहरमानका­नाउमा­ऐनवमोजीम्‌­भैजाने­छ­ईति­स
21म्वत्­१९५९­साल­मीती­आश्वीण­वदि­१३­रोज­३­शुभम्­¯¯¯¯¯¯

Translation

[1r]

Venerable Annapūrṇā 1

From the Guṭhī Jā̃ca Aḍḍā.1

Uprānta: The market square which is within the four boundaries of the guṭhī of -1- (i.e., Annapūrṇā) at Asana is not registered in the record book. The contractor has been made to write down the rate of 35 mohara rupaiyā̃ for establishing gambling at the market square during the years when gambling is permitted. A report was sent by the Aḍḍā in accordance with testimony given by Meheramāna Nhuche Pradhāna from Kasuvīlāchi, city of Kathmandu, who currently lives in Ṭuṃ Bāhāla, stating: “A written order (sanada-purjī) should be issued under my name that I pay the rate of 35 mohara rupaiyā̃ per annum during the years when gambling is permitted as well as the years when it is not permitted.” It was sanctioned by the Mulukī Aḍḍā, which stated: “Every year post a notice in accordance with the Ain.” This report was returned to this Aḍḍā with the approval of the [above-mentioned] order. Meheramāna has written a promissory statement stating: “As promised, I will pay the annual contract [sum] for three years starting from …2 day, the 1st of the dark fortnight of Vaiśākha in the year [19]59 to the 15th of the bright fortnight of the year [19]61 every year within the month of Kārttika, [which amounts to] 105 mohara rupaiyā̃ for three years at the rate of 35 mohara rupaiyā̃ [per annum].” Therefore, the seven-day deadline for [the submission of] bids was posted under the name of that person. On the sixth day when the deadline had not yet expired, Vaida3 Kṛṣṇavīra, who lives in Vaṭu Ṭola, wrote a promissory note to this Aḍḍā, stating: “As I wrote, I will pay 111 mohara rupaiyā̃ for the three-year contract at the rate of 37 mohara rupaiyā̃ per annum, which is two mohara rupaiyā̃ more than the 35 mohara rupaiyā̃ [promised earlier].” [In response] to this [bid], Meheramāna Nhucche Pradhāna wrote a promissory note and submitted it to the Aḍḍā, stating: “I will pay 120 mohara rupaiyā̃ for three years at the rate of 40 mohara rupaiyā̃ [per annum,] which is 3 mohara rupaiyā̃ more, with each year’s contract sum being cleared within the month of Caitra.” [Thus,] the seven-day deadline for [submission of] bids was posted on Saturday, the 4th of the dark fortnight of Bhādra in the year [19]59. Since nobody came to promise more for the contract even by the sixth day [of the deadline period], the notice for the last day of the deadline period had to be posted in accordance with the decision [taken] on the information given. It has been posted today. Therefore, if anybody wishes to take the contract fee as described by promising more [than the bid of 120 mohara rupaiyā̃ for three years] for this contract, come to write a promissory note by today. If the deadline expires, [the contract] will be [issued] under the name of Meheramāna.

Tuesday, the 13th of the dark fortnight of Āśvina in the [Vikrama] era year 1959 (1902 CE).


Commentary

This report from the Guṭhī Jā̃ca Aḍḍā is the first one of series of documents in which the matter of concern is a tender process for assigning the gambling license for the market square at Asana for the years VS 1959-1961 (cf. K_0499_041, K_0499_047, K_0499_048). According to the Mulukī Ain of 1888 (NGMPP reel no. E 1214/3), the process of stipulating the payable sum of an ijārā was ascertained by a tender process, which is the subject of section 8: "When [a contract] is to be issued on either high[est] or low[est] bids, a notice with a seven-day deadline shall be issued in the name of the person who promises [the highest or lowest sum] and observes [all] formalities in accordance with the Ain. [At that time] the stamp of the office shall be affixed [to the notice] and one [notice] shall be posted at the door of the office, one at a place where everyone can see [it], and one at place in question itself. On the sixth day, a report on the notification shall be given [to the higher office]. When a decision on the notification (i.e. the submitted report) arrives, then once the deadline has expired whatever is to be done shall be done (i.e. the necessary action shall be taken). No [contract] shall be granted even after the seven-day deadline has expired if [all] formalities have not been observed in accordance with the Ain. A government officer who does not observe the formalities shall be punished" (MA 1888, Article "On Revenue Arrangements" [rakam bandobastako] section 8, p. 15, translation is mine). The document proves that the process laid down in the MA 1888 was followed: Bids were invited, notices of the highest bids publicly posted for six days, a report was sent to the Mulukī Aḍḍā, which gave its sanction, and finally a one-day deadline for receiving further bids announced.


Notes

1. A seal, probably of the Guṭhī Jā̃ca Aḍḍā, has been affixed to this line. []

2. Due to breakage in the manuscript, the weekday cannot be determined. []

3. This is probably meant as the professional title vaidya, an Ayurvedic doctor. []