WP(C) 2922/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tanti, learned standing counsel IWT appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order of settl ement dated 27.04.2011 settling Sunari-Dudhnath Ferry service for period of 2011 -2012 in favour of the respondent No.5, on the ground that the bid value offered by the respondent No.5 was less than the bid value offered by the petitioner an d the respondent No.5 also did not deposit 5% of the bid value as earnest money. On the backdrop of such assertion of the petitioner, this Court vide ord er dated 28.06.2011 directed the learned standing counsel to produce the origina l records for perusal by the Court and accordingly records have been produced fo r perusal. It appears from the records as produced by the learned standing counsel that while the petitioner offered Rs.4,77,500/-, the respondent No.5 offered Rs. 4,80,000/- apart from the salary component. It also appears from the records tha t the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by means of bank drafts towards t he earnest money, which is 5% of the bid value of the respondent No.5. That being the position, the grounds on which the impugned order of sett lement has been challenged are non-existent. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.