Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4036/2021 on 28 January, 2022
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010127982021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (Civil) no. 4036/2021
Sri Debajit Hazarika
S/o Late Suren Hazarika
R/o Village - Bongaligaon
P.O. Borjuri, Bokakhat
District - Golaghat, Assam
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
represented by the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural
Development Department, Guwahati - 6
2. The Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development
Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 6
3. The Golaghat Zilla Parishad, represented by its Chief
Executive Officer, Golaghat,
District - Golaghat, Assam
4. The Chief Executive Officer
Golaghat, District - Golaghat, Assam
5. The Golaghat West Anchalik Panchayat, Golaghat, Assam,
represented by its Executive Officer cum Secretary, Bokakhat,
District - Golaghat, Assam
6. Sri Puneshwar Saikia
S/o Indreshwar Saikia
Page No.# 2/15
R/o Karoiati, P.O. & P.S. Bokakhat
District - Golaghat, Assam, 785612
...................Respondents
Advocates :
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Das, Senior Advocate,
Mr. D. Kalita, Advocate
For the Respondent nos. 1 - 5 : Mr. A. Roy, Standing Counsel,
Panchayat & Rural Development
For the Respondent no. 6 : Mr. B.P. Bora, Advocate
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 28.01.2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the
petitioner assailing the action on the part of the Golaghat Zilla Parishad in settling Sapjuri
Weekly Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 inter alia on the grounds that the bid of the
petitioner was found to be a valid and higher one than that of the respondent no. 6 and there
was infraction of Rule 47[10] of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 on the part of
the General Standing Committee of Golaghat Zilla Parishad in granting the settlement.
2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issue raised in this writ petition
can be exposited, in brief, as follows:-
2.1 A Tender Notice dated 06.05.2021for settlement of markets/ghats/meen mahals
['Tender Notice', for short] was published by the Golaghat West Anchalik Panchayat, Bokakhat
inviting sealed bids from intending bidders for settlement of a number of markets/ghats/meen
mahals. By the said Tender Notice, a total of 14 nos. of markets within the Anchalik
Panchayat were sought to be settled. One such market was Sapjuri Weekly Market within the
Page No.# 3/15
territorial jurisdiction of Northeast Kaziranga Gaon Panchayat. As per the Tender Notice, the
Government value of the said market was fixed at Rs. 60,638/- and the last date of
submission of bids was initially fixed on 07.06.2021. The last date of submission of bids was,
however, extended twice at later points of time. As per the second extension, the last date of
submission of bids was 21.06.2021.
2.2 It is an admitted position, as revealed from the records of settlement, that in response
to the Tender Notice for settlement of Sapjuri Weekly Market, a total of 11 nos. of bids were
received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order,
quoted by the 11 nos. of bidders were as under :-
Sl. Bidder number Bid value offered
No.
1 Bidder no. 1 Rs. 23,51,000/-
2 Bidder no. 1 [the petitioner] Rs. 15,51,000/-
3 Bidder no. 2 [the respondent no. 6] Rs. 15,00,000/-
4 Bidder no. 4 Rs. 13,85,451/-
5 Bidder no. 5 Rs. 12, 71, 951/-
6 Bidder no. 6 Rs. 11,76,121/-
7 Bidder no. 7 Rs. 9,78,121/-
8 Bidder no. 8 Rs. 9,30,101/-
9 Bidder no. 9 Rs. 8,88,000/-
10 Bidder no. 10 Rs. 6,81,000/-
11 Bidder no. 11 Rs. 6,10,101/-
2.3 When the respondent no. 4 issued an order of settlement dated 20.07.2021 settling
Sapjuri Weekly Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 at his offered bid value of Rs.
15,00,000/-, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition challenging the said
action of the respondent authorities in settling the market in favour of the respondent no. 6.
3. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D Kalita, learned counsel for
Page No.# 4/15
the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development
[P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1 - 5; and Mr. B.P. Bora, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 6.
4. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bid of the
petitioner was found to be a valid and higher one by the General Standing Committee of
Golaghat Zilla Parishad. Amongst the 11 nos. of bidders, the bid of the petitioner was found
to be the second highest bid whereas the bid of the respondent no. 6 was found to be the
third highest bid. The main contention of Mr. Das is that if the General Standing Committee
decides to settle a market in favour of a bidder despite presence of higher valid bids, then
such acceptance would require prior and formal approval from the State Government. He has
submitted that Rule 47[10] of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 ['the Rules, 2002',
for short] has stipulated that the tender of the highest bidder shall have to be accepted. By
referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4, he has submitted that
the respondent no. 4 has clearly admitted that there was no prior and formal approval of the
State Government in terms of the Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 before settling the market
in favour of the respondent no. 6. By referring to the decision of this Court in Sarat Gogoi vs.
State of Assam and others, reported in 2015 [2] GLT 194, he has submitted that in absence
of prior and formal approval of the State Government in settling Sapjuri Weekly Market in
favour of a lower valid bidder like the respondent no. 6, such settlement is liable to be set
aside in view of the violation of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002. On the basis of the records
placed by the learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department where the resolution of the
General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parihad is available, he has submitted that the
reasons cited by the General Standing Committee in settling the market in favour of the
respondent no. 6 being irrelevant, are clearly not sustainable. It is his submission that the
Tender Notice itself has prescribed that the lessee of the market would have to collect the
fees at the rates approved by the Zilla Parishad and/or the Anchalik Panchayat and the lessee
has to keep the rates of such prescribed fees in a notice board located at a conspicuous place
in the market so that it is clearly noticeable to everyone. Thus, the reason assigned by the
General Standing Committee in its resolution dated 25.06.2021 that due to the ten prevailing
Covid-19 pandemic situation the bid value offered by the petitioner would be exhorbitant is
Page No.# 5/15
clearly unsustainable. It is his further submission that the bid of the respondent no. 6 was
defective on many aspects and one of them was that the guarantor of the respondent no. 6
did not submit his own land documents but submitted the land documents of another person.
Moreover, the guarantor is a government pensioner which is in violation of the condition of
the Tender Notice. The respondent no. 4 in the said affidavit-in-opposition, has also admitted
that the documents submitted by the petitioner with his bid were in order. Contending as
above, Mr. Das has submitted that the Tender Notice was floated inter alia for settlement of
Sapjuri Weekly Market for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 and as such, the
respondent no. 6 cannot be permitted to operate the market for any further period due to the
above illegalities and the market is to be settled in terms of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002.
5. Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department has submitted that the General
Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad in its meeting held on 25.06.2021 had evaluated the
bids submitted by all the 11 bidders along with their offered bid values. The General Standing
Committee found the bid of one Sri Yubanath Dutta, who offered a bid value of Rs.
23,51,000/-, the bid of the petitioner and the bid of the respondent no. 6 as valid ones along
with few other bids. The General Standing Committee had also considered the then prevailing
situation due to Covid-19 pandemic and the conditions of the local people. Having considered
those aspects, the General Standing Committee had arrived at an decision that the bid values
offered by the first highest bidder and the second highest bidder were exhorbitant ones and
thus, decided not to accept their bids. He has, however, fairly submitted that while accepting
the bid of the respondent no. 6, whose bid was the third highest, prior and formal approval
from the State Government, as required under Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002, was not
obtained. He has placed the relevant records of settlement including the minutes of the
meeting of the General Standing Committee held on 25.06.2021. By referring to the affidavit-
in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Golaghat Zilla
Parishad, Mr. Roy has submitted that the land offered by the guarantor of the respondent no.
6 did not belong to him. It has further been averred therein that the petitioner also did not
furnish a consent letter/no objection certificate from one of the co-pattadars of the land
which the petitioner submitted as security. He has, thus, submitted that the bid of the
petitioner was also deficient.
Page No.# 6/15
6. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the initial order
of settlement dated 27.02.2021 was for the period up to 31.12.2021. On 20.12.2021, another
settlement order was issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 whereby the market has been
settled again in his favour for the period up to 28.02.2022. Pursuant to the said order dated
20.12.2021, the respondent no. 6 has already deposited the amount that was asked for. As
the subsequent settlement order dated 20.12.2021 has not been put to challenge in this writ
petition, the writ petition, according to him, is not maintainable. He has further submitted
that the observation regarding exhorbitant bid values offered by the first highest bidder and
the second highest bidder taken by the General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad was
proper and justified as it was taken considering the then prevailing situation due to Covid-19
pandemic and the conditions of the local people who would do business in the market.
Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagdish Mandal vs. State
of Orissa, reported in [2007] 14 SCC 517, he has submitted that if the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, the courts will not, in exercise of
power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or
prejudice to a tenderer is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
disputes. It is his further contention that the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder
of necessary parties as the writ petitioner herein has not impleaded the other bidders,
especially Sri Yubanath Dutta, whose bid was also found to be a valid and higher one than
both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. To buttress his said contention, he has relied
upon a decision of this Court rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4616/2016 [ Ritwick
Gogoi vs. State of Assam and others], decided on 02.05.2017.
7. In reply, Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-
joinder of necessary party will not come in the way of adjudication of the writ petition
because of the primary contention of the writ petitioner herein is infraction of the statutory
rule contained in Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 on the part of the General Standing
Committee of Golaghat Zilla Parishad in settling the market in question pursuant to the
Tender Notice dated 06.05.2021. Moreover, it appears that the first highest bidder is not
Page No.# 7/15
aggrieved by the impugned decision regarding the settlement as he has not challenged the
same. The decision in Jagdish Mandal [supra] is not applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the case as in the said case, no statutory rule was involved. Rather, it is the decision in
Jespar I. Slong vs. State of Meghalaya and others, reported in [2004] 11 SCC 485, which will
be applicable in the case.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also
gone through the records of settlement, produced by Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel,
P&RD Department and the decisions cited by the parties.
9. It is settled that a bidder who has participated in a competitive bidding process atleast
has a right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bid
offered by him in response to a notice inviting tender in a transparent manner and free from
any hidden agenda and in that respect, he is entitled to be treated in a fair, equal and non-
discriminatory manner in the matter of evaluation of his bid. A bidder has an enforceable
right to that limited extent before the Court and the Court can definitely examine the issue as
to whether the petitioner has been treated unfairly or discriminated against. An obligation is
also cast on the tendering authority to proceed with the matter in fair, just and transparent
manner by undertaking the exercise in accordance with law.
10. As have been noted above, 11 bidders responded to the Tender Notice dated
06.05.2021. After receipt of the bids from the 11 bidders, the Anchalik Panchayat opened the
bids and after going through the documents submitted along with the bids, the Anchalik
Panchayat processed the same and forwarded the entire matter to the Zilla Parishad for its
decision. The Government value fixed for Sapjuri Weekly Market, as per the Tender Notice,
was Rs. 60,638/-. As per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, all tender notices,
in respect of markets, ghats and fisheries, irrespective of the yearly sale value of such
property, are required to be floated by the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. However, after
submission of all tender papers before the Anchalik Panchayat, if the bid value offered by the
eligible highest bidder is found to be more than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Standing General
Page No.# 8/15
Committee of Anchalik Panchayat, constituted under Section 52 of the Assam Panchayat Act,
1994, requires to forward all such tender papers submitted by the bidders together with a
comparative statement prepared and processed, to the concerned Zilla Parishad, for doing
the needful at their end. Section 109[6] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 has laid down that
the powers of examination and final acceptance of such tender shall be vested in the General
Standing Committee of the concerned Zilla Parishad constituted under Section 81 of the
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The said position has also been clarified by the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Harej Ali and another vs. the State of Assam and others, reported in
2009 [2] GLT 561. Admittedly, many of the valid bids submitted in respect of Sapjuri Weekly
Market had bid values more than Rs. 1,00,000/- for one year. Thus, it is the Zilla Parishad
who was to finally accept the tender and pass the order of settlement.
11. Sub-Rule [10] of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 reads as
follows :-
Rules and Procedures for the Sale and Settlement of Markets, Ferries,
Fisheries and Ponds
Rule 47[10] - The tender of highest bidder shall be accepted. Acceptance of tender
other than the highest bid shall require the "Government" prior and formal approval.
12. Rule 47[10] has been incorporated in the Rules, 2002 so that the settling authority
cannot deviate arbitrarily from the norm of settling ordinarily the market with the highest
valid bidder without prior approval of the higher authority, that is, the State Government. Rule
47[10] also came to be considered by this Court in Sarat Gogoi [supra]. It has been held
therein that in a case where the highest bidder is sought to be not given the settlement and
the settlement is sought to be offered to a next higher bidder, prior and formal approval of
the Government is required to be taken. In the event no prior and formal approval is taken by
the Zilla Parishad while issuing the settlement order in favour of a bidder who is not the
highest valid bidder, then the settlement given to such a bidder would not be sustainable,
being violative of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002.
Page No.# 9/15
13. In the context of the above, when records of settlement including the minutes of the
meeting of the General Standing Committee held on 25.06.2021 and the stand taken by the
respondent no. 4 in his affidavit are perused, it is found that the General Standing Committee
upon evaluation of the bids, had found that the first highest bidder viz. Yubanath Dutta and
the second highest bidder i.e. the petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents in
terms of the Tender Notice. Having observed so, the General Standing Committee had held
that the bids of both the first highest bidder and the second highest bidder as acceptable,
meaning thereby, their bids were valid ones. The respondent no. 4, in the affidavit-in-
opposition, has also averred that all the documents submitted by the petitioner were found in
order by the General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad. It has further been admitted
by the respondent no. 4 in his said affidavit-in-opposition that no prior and formal approval
was obtained from the State Government towards compliance of Rules 47[10] of the Rules,
2002. The records of settlement also do not reveal that any prior and formal approval was
taken from the State Government prior to making the order of settlement.
14. The reasons given by the General Standing Committee about finding the bid values
offered by the said two bidders as exhorbitant were two, firstly, the then prevailing situation
due to Covid-19 pandemic; and secondly, the poor economic conditions of the farmers of the
nearby areas. The said two bid values were Rs. 23,51,000/- and Rs. 15,51,000/- respectively.
The learned counsel for the respondents have, however, been not able to provide any cogent
reason as to how a bid value of Rs. 15,51,000/-, offered by the petitioner, can be treated to
be exhorbitant vis-à-vis the bid value of Rs. 15,00,000/-, offered by the respondent no. 6.
14.1. The question of terming the bid value offered by the petitioner as an exhorbitant one is
to be considered in the context of the nature of settlement qua the provisions of the Assam
Panchayat Act, 1994.
14.2. In this context, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Jespar I. Slong vs. State of Meghalaya and others , reported in [2004] 11 SCC 485, can be
referred to at first. The State of Meghalaya owned a weighbridge at Morkjniange which it had
Page No.# 10/15
decided to lease out to the contractors who were willing to take it on lease on yearly basis
and for that purpose, it issued a notice inviting tender. When the tendering authority settled
the weighbridge in favour of one of the bidders at Rs. 1.21 crore, the same was challenged
before the High Court. It was held by the High Court that the bid, at which it was accepted,
was speculative and predatory. When the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India noticed that the income from the weighbridge was to be
received from the fees charged for weighment of trucks which would pass through the route
on which the weighbridge was situated. The trucks mostly used to carry coal and as per the
relevant notification, the person operating the weighbridge, could only charge a sum of Rs.
30/- for a loaded truck and Rs. 10/- for an unloaded truck. In such scenario, it was observed
that the fee to be collected from the transporters for weighment of their vehicle was fixed
and it would not vary with the amount of bid offered by the contractor. The contract would
not have any effect on the price of coal, since weighment charges were fixed by the
Government and the contractor had no right to increase the same, thereby, to cause loss to
the public. It has been held that the payment of the bid amount is purely a matter between
the contractor and the State. As a matter of fact, obtaining higher revenue by accepting the
eligible highest bid would only be in public interest because the State stands to gain more
revenue in that way. It has also been observed that offering of the bid after knowing the
commercial value of the contract is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the
tenderer and no third party's interest is involved in such a contract. If the State decides to
give its largesse to the public it has an obligation to see it fetches the best possible value for
the same, provided otherwise it does not in any manner affect the rights of other persons.
14.3. The bidders are considered to be prudent businessmen who prepare their tenders by
taking into consideration a host of factors including the terms and conditions incorporated in
the tender document, the estimated amount and the quantums of profit they are likely to
earn and accordingly, they arrive at their tendered bid values. One prepares his tender to the
best of his estimation, by quoting his tendered bid value at a definite amount on the premise
that at such amount, he would be able to perform the obligations under the contract if the
tender is settled in his favour and at the same time, would also be able to earn a particular
amount of profit. A number of bidders participate in a tender process and the bidders tender
Page No.# 11/15
different bid values but only one of them emerges successful. Thus, the preparation of the
tendered bid value is at the risk and peril of rejection of one's tender if the same does not
emerge as the highest valid one and a tender process is always competitive.
14.4. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is an admitted position that a lessee if he is
settled with a market under the aegis of the Zilla Parishad and/or Anchalik Panchayat, has to
collect the fees in the market only at the rates fixed by the Anchalik Panchayat and/or Zilla
Parishad. The lessee cannot collect fees at a higher rate than the rate fixed by the Anchalik
Panchayat and/or Zilla Parishad. As per the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice, the
lessee at all times, has to keep the rates of fees prescribed by the Anchalik Panchayat and/or
Zilla Parishad by installing a notice board at a conspicuous place in the market so that it is
noticeable to all concerned. Therefore, the rates of fees to be collected by the lessee are
fixed and such rates of fees do not vary with the amount of bid offered by a bidder and there
is no correlation between the prescribed rates of fees to be collected in the market and the
lease value at which the market has been settled with. The settlement of the market in view
of the fact that the lessee has to collect the fees at the prescribed rate will not have any
effect on any third person like a local farmer whether the market is settled with the first
highest valid bidder or any other bidder. But, acceptance of a bid of a lower valid bidder
would result in lesser revenue to the State Exchequer. Thus, the settlement of Sapjuri Weekly
Market made by the General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad in favour of the
respondent no. 6 at his bid value of Rs. 15,00,000/- in ignorance of the higher bid values of
Rs. 23,51,000/- and Rs. 15,51,000/- offered by one Sri Yubanath Dutta and the petitioner
respectively, despite the fact that it found those two bids as valid ones, by taking into
consideration irrelevant factors in the decision making process is clearly not in the public
interest. The decision making process for distribution of State largesses is found to be guided
by irrelevant factors which has resulted in causing loss to the State Exchequer, thereby,
making the process arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory
14.5. Though in certain situations acceptance of a lesser bid may be permissible but in case
of settlement of a market under the aegis of the Anchalik Panchayat and/or Zilla Parishad, the
same is ordinarily required to be settled in favour of the highest valid bidder as per the Rule
Page No.# 12/15
47[10] of the Rules, 2002. In the event the General Standing Committee, a statutorily
constituted body, decides to settle the market in favour of a bidder other than the highest
valid bidder then it has to obtain prior and formal approval from the State Government, which
has not been taken in the case in hand. The fact that there are higher valid bidders than the
respondent no. 6 is also admitted by him in his affidavit-in-opposition.
15. The decision, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, in Jagdish
Mandal [supra] is found to be not of any assistance as to the case of the respondent no. 6 for
at least two reasons.
15.1. It has been held in Jagdish Mandal [supra] that the judicial review of administrative
action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala
fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check
whether choice or decision is 'sound'. If the said observation is taken into consideration in the
context of the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is found that the General
Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad while settling the market in favour of the
respondent no. 6 has clearly acted in violation of the statutory prescription contained in Rule
47[10] of the Rules, 2002. Viewed in that context, the decision of the General Standing
Committee is clearly not lawful.
15.2. It has been observed in Jagdish Mandal [Supra] also to the effect that if the decision
relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, the courts will not interfere
even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made in
exercise of power of judicial review. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
disputes. In Jagdish Mandal [supra], the disputes pertained to award of an irrigation project
by the Water Resources Department, Government of Orissa in favour of the lowest bidder on
the ground that the earnest money deposit submitted by him was non-compiant to the
conditions of the tender notice. In the case in hand, the subject-matter pertains to settlement
of a market to be operated under the aegis of the Anchalik Panchayat and/or the Zilla
Parishad. The settlement of the irrigation project was to be made on the basis of evaluation
Page No.# 13/15
of the tenders submitted by the tenderers without there being any necessity to comply with
any statutory provision but only by the conditions of the tender notice whereas the
settlement of a market like the present one, is to be made on the basis of the evaluation of
the bids submitted by the bidders not only on the basis of the conditions of the tender notice
but the same has also to be in compliance with the statutory prescription contained in Rule
47[10] of the Rules, 2002.
15.3. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can
logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that even a slight distinction in fact or
an additional or different fact may make a lot of difference in the decision making process. On
the analysis of the factual matrices obtaining in Jagdish Mandal [supra] and the case in hand,
the ratio of the said decision is not found applicable to the case in hand for the reasons
discussed hereinabove. The reasons recorded by the General Standing Committee in its
meeting held on 25.06.2021 and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents about finding the bid values offered by the first highest bidder and the second
highest bidder as exhorbitant are found to be of arbitrary and without substance.
16. The decision in Ritwick Gogoi [supra] was rendered in a case where the bid of the
petitioner therein was declared to be a defective one and the concerned market viz. Silghat
Daily Market was settled in favour of a bidder who had quoted a lesser bid value than the
petitioner but the bid was a valid one. When the petitioner challenged the said settlement,
this Court found the bid of the petitioner therein again to be a defective one. The violation of
the provision of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 was not directly an issue in Ritwick Gogoi
[supra] whereas the violation of the prescription contained in Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002
is directly an issue in the case in hand. Thus, the case of Ritwick Gogoi [supra] does not
come in assistance of the respondent no. 6. The decision is also found distinguishable in view
of the clear admission on the part of the respondent no. 6 herein in his affidavit-in-opposition
where he has admitted that there were two other bidders who offered higher bid values than
him and those two bids were in order.
17. The contention advanced by Mr. Bora as regards not challenging the subsequent
Page No.# 14/15
settlement order dated 20.12.2021, is also found to be bereft of substance. From a perusal of
the settlement order dated 20.12.2021, it is found that the said settlement has also been
made pursuant to the decision dated 25.06.2021 of the General Standing Committee of the
Zilla Parishad. By the said order, the respondent no. 6 has been asked to deposit his
subsequent installment. As has also been noticed above, by the Tender Notice dated
06.05.2021, the bids were invited for settlement of Sapjuri Weekly Market for one year for the
year 2021-2022 up to 30.06.2022. Thus, the settlement order dated 20.12.2021 is only in
consequence of the decision of the General Standing Committee dated 25.06.2021 and in
continuation of the earlier order of settlement dated 20.07.2021. As the challenge in the
instant writ petition is made with regard to the order of settlement dated 20.07.2021 on the
premise that Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 was not followed in making the settlement of
Sapjuri Weekly Market, which is a mandatory prescription, the question of not challenging the
subsequent settlement order dated 20.07.2021, which is merely a consequential order in
continuation of the earlier settlement order dated 25.06.2021, does not make the writ
petition not maintainable. Moreover, the respondent authorities in the Zilla Parishad are silent
on the aspect as to why, at the first instance, the market was settled for a shorter period than
one year when bids were invited by the Tender Notice dated 06.05.2021 for settlement of the
market for a period of one year up to 30.06.2022. The grounds referred by the respondent
no. 4 about deficiencies in the bids of the respondent no. 6 as well as the petitioner are not
found by the General Standing Committee of Zilla Parishad during the course of its evaluation
of the bids, as found recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 25.06.2021.
18. In view of the discussion made above and the reasons assigned therein, more
particularly, in view of violation of Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 on the part of the General
Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, the process of settlement resulting into the order of
settlement in favour of the respondent no. 6 is found to be vitiated one due to taking into
account irrelevant factors in the decision making process and non-compliance of the statutory
prescription contained in Rule 47[10] of the Rules, 2002 and the same is liable to be set
aside. It is accordingly set aside.
19. Consequently, the Zilla Parishad is directed to revisit the matter of settlement once
Page No.# 15/15
again on the basis of the records containing the tender documents of the participating valid
bidders and to arrive at a decision on the settlement of Sapjuri Weekly Market for the
subsequent period up to 30.06.2022, as indicated in the Tender Notice dated 06.05.2021, in
compliance of Rule 47[10] Rules, 2002. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and
completed on or before 15.02.2022.
20. At this stage, Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that
the respondent no. 6 has already deposited the installment amount to operate the market
upto 28.02.2022 and the respondent no. 6 is presently operating the market. Thus, he may
be allowed to operate the market till 28.02.2022.
21. In view of the directions given above, the respondent no. 6 may be permitted to
operate the market up to 15.02.2022 and if after that, any excess amount of installment for
the period from 16.02.2022 is found to be refunded to the respondent no. 6 due to deposit
already made by him, the same shall be refunded by the respondent authorities forthwith
thereafter.
22. With the observations made and directions given above, the writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
