WP(C) 4247/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.R.Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V.L. Si ngh, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam who represents the official resp ondents. Mr. M.H. Talukdar, learned counsel appears for respondent No.8. The petitioner who submitted tender seeking settlement of Rupakuchi Par Ghat (h ereinafter referred to as the Ghat ) for which tenders were invited by the NIT dated 3.5.08 by the Executive Officer, Mandia Anchalik Panchayat, is before this Court for non-consideration of his valid tender and the unjustified interferenc e of the Barpeta Zilla Parishad, who passed the impugned settlement order dated 31.7.08, in favour of the respondent No.8, although the process of settlement wa s initiated by the Anchalik Panchayat. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Govt. value of the Ghat, as revealed in the tender notice, was fixed at Rs.28,000/-and as such the Ghat could be settled only by the Anchalik Panchayat and the intervention of the Zilla Parishad was totally unwarranted in the settlement process. The learned counsel also refers to the comparative statement prepared of all the tenders received by the Anchalik Panchayat pursuant to the tender notice, to sh ow that the tender of the respondent No.8 was considered to be an invalid tender as requisite Bank draft by way of security, was not furnished by the respondent No. 8 while submitting his tender. Ms. V.L. Singh, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate on the basis of the records available submitted that the Barpeta Zilla Parishad intervened in the matter onl y because bids above Rs.1 lakh was received in response to the tender notice and accordingly the Barpeta Zilla Parishad considered it justified to intervene in the tender process. However, the learned Govt. Advocate has no instruction as to how the tender of respondent No. 8 was considered to be valid, although the req uisite Bank draft prescribed as essential under Clause -2 of the tender notice w as not furnished by him. Mr. M.H. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 8 produces a Xerox copy of a document obtained by him from the Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank and s ubmits that respondent No. 8, in fact, had furnished the requisite Bank draft an d accordingly, the offer of respondent No. 8 cannot be considered as invalid. On perusal of the above document produced by the learned counsel for respondent No.8, it is clear that what was tendered by respondent No. 8 was not a Bank draf t as required by Clause-2 of the tender notice, but was a receipt issued by the Manager of the Prasgjyotish Gaonlia Bank. This document, in my considered view, cannot be treated to be a Bank draft. Accordingly, since tender without the Bank draft was to be rejected, the Standing Committee of the anchalik Panchayat, has rightly ordered rejection of the tender of respondent No. 8. Since the Govt. value of Ferry Ghat was fixed at Rs.28,000/-, the competent auth ority to make the settlement of the Ferry Ghat would be the Anchalik Panchayat and merely because offers beyond Rs.1 lakh was received, all of which incidental ly were invalid offers, the Barpeta Zilla Parishad could not have in my opinion , intervened in the matter. Under such circumstances, the settlement order dated 31.7.08 granted by the Chie f Executive Officer, Barpeta Zilla Parishad in favour of respondent No. 8 cannot be sustained in law. In view of above, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat is directed to take appropriate step s in pursuant to the tender notice dated 3.5.08 for settlement of the Rupakuchi Par Ghat. Such action should expeditiously be done from the stage of preparation of comparative statement by the Anchalik Panchayat, and the finality to the ten der process should be given within a period of two weeks from the date of receip t of a copy of this Court’s order.