WA 312/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. SAIKIA (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge partly allo wing the writ petition of the appellant to the extent of quashing award of contr act in favour of respondent No.6. The grievance of the appellant is against reje ction of prayer for grant of contract to the appellant. The Anchalik Panchayat proposed to award contract for running of Kaplabari Go-Ba zar for the year 2011-12. The bid of the petitioner was for Rs.70,800/- but the contract was awarded to respondent No.6 for Rs.2,51,101/-. The grievance put forward by the petitioner was that the Committee, which prepar ed a comparative chart of bids, found defect in the bid of respondent No.6 on ac count of non-submission of land revenue certificate but the said defect was igno red and contract was illegally given to respondent No.6. Learned Single Judge upheld this plea and quashed the contract awarded to respon dent No.6. While considering the prayer that the petitioner be granted the contract, it was noted that there was some interpolation in the record and there were some adver se remarks against the petitioner which were erased. Thus, the tender of the pet itioner was also defective. The finding recorded by learned Single Judge is as u nder : Coming to the question as to whether the settlement of the market by Anchalik P anchayat in favour of the writ petitioner can also be approved either by the Zil la Parishad or by this Court. After perusing the comparative statement, it appea rs to me that some remarks were also recorded against the tender of the writ pet itioner. But the remarks were subsequently erased. In view of this position, an inference can be drawn that the remarks were certainly against the writ petition er. In this way, all the tenders were defective and neither the Anchalik Panchay at nor the Zilla Parishad can be directed by this Court to settle the market wit h the writ petitioner as well. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Anch alik Panchayat to issue fresh NIT and proceed further. Till a fresh settlement i s made, the Zilla Parishad is allowed to run the market. This liberty is given t o the Zilla Parishad keeping in mind that till date, the Zilla Parishad was runn ing the market and the bid value of the market was also found to be much above R s.1 lakh per annum. It is clear from the above that the tender of the petitioner was defective and b id offered was disproportionately low. In these circumstances, if learned Single Judge declined to give a direction for award of contract to the appellant, we a re unable to find any error therein. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.