WP(C) 3108/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms V L Sinha, learn ed Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 . Also heard Mr P Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, and Mr B Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. By making this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the settlement of Ketekibari Bi-weekly Mar ket, for the year 2009-10, given by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, by order, dated 22.06.2009, in favour of respondent No. 6. In the present case, the Notice Inviting Tender (in short, ’the NIT) was published on 02.05.2009 and the order of settlement was made, as indicated abov e on 22.06.2009. The NIT aforementioned was issued, on 02.05. 2009, by the Sonit pur Zila Parishad, whereas, in the light of the decision of this High Court in H arej Ali & Others -Vs- The State of Assam & Others, reported in 2009 (2) GLT 561 (FD), the NIT ought to have been issued to Gabharu Anchalik Panchayat. It is, therefore, more than abundantly clear that the very settlement of the market, in question, pursuant to the NIT dated 2.05.2009, suffers from lack of jurisdiction. It may also be noted that this writ petition having been filed, an inter im order was made, on 04.01.2009, suspending the settlement of the market, made by order, dated 22.06.2009, in favour of the respondent No. 6, and since then, t he respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been running the said market by engaging a perso n on temporary basis. The running of the market by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by appointing a n outsider to run the market is wholly illegal inasmuch as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the Chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer of the Sonitpur Zila Parishad, Tezpur, respectively, ought to have either run the market directl y or the Court’s permission ought to have been obtained before engaging anyone e lse to run the market. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, the impugned order, dated 22.06.2009 is hereby set aside and quashed. It is made clear that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall, now, run the market by way of appropriate settlement in accordance with law. However, for a period of six weeks from today, the respondent Nos. and 5 are hereby allowed to run the s aid market on the basis of the temporary arrangement, which they have made or by engaging its own permanent employee(s). With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands di sposed of. No cost.