WP(C) 3895/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. AK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Handique, learned St ate counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. The petitioner, who was one of the tenderer in respect of Salondonga Soulmari Pa rghat within the territorial limit of Gauripur Anchalik Panchayat, by the presen t petition, has challenged the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Chief Executiv e Officer, Dhubri Zila Parishad settling the said parghat in favour of the respo ndent No. 4 at Rs. 1,00,000/- purportedly on the ground that he is the highest v alid bidder and as the settlement has been approved in the General Standing Comm ittee meeting of the Zila Parishad as per Resolution dated 29.6.2011. The Executive officer of the Gauripur Anchalik Panchayat on 28.5.2011 issued the notice inviting tender for settlement of different markets and parghats includi ng the Salondonga Soulmari Parghat for the panchayat year 2011-2012, pursuant to which five persons including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 submitted the bids. While the petitioner offered Rs. 1,00,051/-, the respondent No. 4 offe red Rs. 99,999.99/-. There were three other bidders who offered more than what t he petitioner offered. The bids of those three tenderers were rejected as their tender papers were found to be defective. The Anchalik Panchayat thereafter in t he proceeding dated 15.6.2011 recommended the name of the petitioner for settlem ent at Rs. 1,00,051/- with the comment that his tender papers is valid. The Zila Parishad, however, has passed the order dated 5.7.2011 settling the said pargha t in favour of the respondent No. 4 purportedly on the basis of the approval acc orded vide resolution dated 29.6.2004 on the ground that he is the valid highest bidder. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition and the materials available on records, as produced by Mr. Ha ndique, learned State counsel, submits that it is apparent that the Anchalik Pan chayat having found the petitioner’s tender papers in order recommended the sett lement of the parghat in his favour at Rs. 1,00,051/-, which in fact was initial ly approved by the President of the Zila Parishad and subsequently was changed a nd decided to give the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4, on the grou nd that there is certain manipulations of the signature of the petitioner in the tender papers, which was not found by the Anchalik Panchayat. The learned couns el submits that the records as produced by the learned State counsel even do not contain the resolution dated 29.6.11 stated to be adopted by the general standi ng committee of the Zila Parishad for settlement of the parghat in favour of the respondent No. 4, as stated, in the impugned order dated 5.7.2011. It has also been submitted that going by the initial approval accorded by the Zila Parishad, the proposal submitted by the Anchalik Panchayat recommending the settlement in favour of the petitioner, was approved, as it was earlier mentioned that the ap proval for settlement was granted at Rs. 1,00,051/-, which was subsequently chan ged to Rs. 1,00,000/- and added the words in favour of Dhiren Mali the respond ent No. 4 though his bid was not Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that if there is any manipulation the same was done by the Zila Parisha d. It has therefore, been submitted that the order of settlement dated 5.7.2011 needs to be set aside more so when the prior approval was not accorded as requir ed under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial ) Rules, 2002. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel producing the relevant records has submitted that the records as produced do not reveal existence of any proceeding of the g eneral standing committee meeting dated 29.6.2011 as reflected in the impugned o rder dated 5.7.2011. It has, however, been submitted by Mr. Handique that though in the comparative statement prepared and forwarded by the Anchalik Panchayat, the Anchalik Panchayat recommended the settlement of the Parghat in favour of th e petitioner, the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad have approved the settlement of the parghat in favour of the respondent No. 4 a t Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Zila Parishad having found that there is manipulation of s ignature in the tender papers submitted by the petitioner whose bid was more tha n that of the respondent No. 4. Mr. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 supporting the ar guments advanced by Mr. Handique, learned State counsel also submits that as the Zila Parishad found manipulation of the signature of the petitioner in the tend er papers his bid was rejected leaving the respondent No. 4 as the lone valid bi dder and as such the decision was taken to settle the parghat with the responden t No. 4 at Rs. 1,00,000/- as he offered 99,999.99 by rounding of the said figure . I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the partie s and also perused the records as produced by Mr. Handique, the learned State co unsel relating to the settlement of the parghat. The records as produced do not reveal existence of any resolution adopted by the general standing committee of the Zila Parishad. On the other hand the records reveal that in the comparative statement prepared by the Anchalik Panchayat, it recommended settlement of the parghat in favour of the writ petitioner at Rs. 1, 00,051/-. The President of the Zila Parishad though initially approved the settl ement of the parghat at Rs. 1,00,051/- and put his signature on 4.7.2011, the fi gure was subsequently changed to Rs. 1,00,000/- as is evident from the records. The seal of the President of the Zila Parishad was also erased by applying the c orrecting fluid and thereafter added the words in favour of Dhiren Mali . The s aid note was signed only by the President of the Zila Parishad apart from the Ch ief Executive Officer and not by any of the members, which reflects that no reso lution was adopted in the general standing committee meeting as stated in the im pugned order dated 5.7.2011. The manipulations by the Zila Parishad President is also evident from the fact that he earlier accorded approval to the proposal of the Anchalik Pachayat who recommended settlement in favour of the writ petition er. Had the proposal not been approved, the President of the Zila Parishad would have written that the proposal of the Anchalik Panchayat is not approved and th e settlement is given in favour of the respondent No. 4. The offer of the writ p etitioner was rejected by the President of the Zila Parishad on the ground that the signature in the tender papers by the petitioner was found to be manipulated though the Anchalik Panchayat found the petitioner’s tender papers in order. Sub Section 6 of Section 109 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 provides for settl ement of hats, ferries and fisheries falling under any Anchalik Panchayat within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad, the yearly sale value of which is not exceed ing more than 1 lakh, for a period not exceeding one panchayat financial year in the manner prescribed under Section 105, 106 and 109 of the Act. It also provid es that the power to examine and final acceptance of such tenders shall be veste d in the standing committee constituted under Section 81(i)(a) of the Act, i.e. the general standing committee. Section 81 of the said Act provides for constitution of four standing committees namely the general standing committee, finance and audit committee, social just ice committee and planning and development committee. Sub Section 1 of Section 8 2 provides that each standing committee shall consists of such number of member or members not exceeding five including the chairman as specified by the Zila Pa rishad and elected by the members of the Zila Parishad from amongst its members whose term will be one year at a time. Sub Section 5 of Section 82 of the said Act provides that the chief executive officer of the Zila Parishad will be the e x-officio secretary of the general standing committee. In the instant case, the bid value of the four bidders being more than 1 lakh th e order of settlement is required to be passed by the Zila Parishad in view of t he provisions contained under Sub Section 6 of Section 109 read with Section 81 of the Act. As discussed above, the records do not reveal existence of any proceeding of the general standing committee and it was only the President and the Chief Executiv e Officer of the Zila Parishad who took the decision to settle the parghat in fa vour of the respondent No. 4, where also appears some manipulations. That being the position I have no alternative but to set aside the impugned orde r dated 5.7.2011 and to remand the matter to the authority for taking a decision relating to the settlement afresh. The next question is to whom the proceeding is to be remanded. As discussed above, there are certain manipulations in the office of the Zila Pa rishad, Dhubri, as initially on 4.7.2011 a decision was taken to settle the parg hat in favour of the petitioner at Rs. 1,00,051/- which was subsequently changed and was decided to settle the same in favour of the respondent No. 4 with the c omment in the comparative statement prepared by the Anchalik Panchayat that ther e is manipulation of the signature of the petitioner in the tender papers. That being the position and keeping in view the fact that the approval under Sub Rule 10 of Rule 47 of the 2002 Rules, in the matter of any decision taken for s ettlement of any market or parghat in favour of the bidder other than the highes t valid bidder, is required to be taken from the State Govt., the matter is rema nded to the Commissioner and Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Departme nt to take a decision in the matter of settlement for the panchayat year 2011-20 12 pursuant to the aforesaid NIT issued and the tender papers submitted by the v arious tenderers including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, which shall be done within three weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order passed today either by the petitioner or by the respondent No. 4. For the period of four weeks from today, it is, however, directed that the respo ndent No. 4 be allowed to operate the parghat in question as he has deposited th e kist money and the security deposit. It is needless to say that the Commissioner and Secretary will decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observation made in this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost.