WA 88/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA (Amitava Roy, J) In challenge is the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 rendered by the l earned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5730/2009 whereby the impugnment of the communi cation dated 15.12.2009 settling the Chatiani Public Pond in favour of the writ appellant/ respondent No.6 has been interfered with. We have heard Mr RP Sarmah, learned counsel for the writ appellant/ resp ondent No.6; Ms. B Goyal, learned State counsel for the official respondents and Mr AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner. The factual background in short is indispensable. In response to a Notic e Inviting Tender (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’NIT’) dated 2.6.2009 i ssued on behalf of the Sarupathar Town Committee, Sarupathar (for short, hereina fter referred to as ’the Town Committee’) inviting applications from the intendi ng eligible tenderers for settlement of the Chatiani Public Pond, Sarupathar (fo r short, hereinafter referred to as ’the pond’), the parties herein offered thei r bids as hereunder: Name Bid Value i) Sri Pronoy Deb, writ appellant Rs. 21,108.00 ii) Sri Amal Adhikari, respondent No.1 Rs. 15,500.00 One Sri Uttam Deb and Sri Premesh Deb who, according to the respondent N o.1/ writ petitioner, are the father and the brother of the writ appellant also participated in the process quoting Rs. 16,109.00 and Rs. 11,107.00 respectively as their offers. The Town Committee in its meeting held on 18.6.2009, on a comparative ev aluation of the bids on the touchstone of the conditions of eligibility spelt ou t in the NIT, recommended settlement of the pond in favour of Sri Amal Adhikari, respondent No.1/ writ petitioner. The recommendation as above was forwarded to the Director of Municipal Administration, Dispur, Guwahati on the very same date . While the issue lay pending with the said authority, the Town Committee held a fresh proceeding on 12.10.2009 and taking into consideration the certificate su bmitted by the appellant/ respondent No.6, the highest bidder, in respect of the immovable property standing in the name of his father as well as a No Objection Certificate issued by the latter, accorded settlement of the pond in his name. The proceedings dated 12.10.2009 would reveal that these two documents were acce pted to be valid by the Town Committee while approving the candidature of the ap pellant/ respondent No.6 in granting the settlement. This decision was communica ted to the appellant/ respondent No.6 vide the letter dated 15.12.2009 impugned in the aforementioned writ proceeding. Following the assailment made to the above settlement by the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner, notice was issued inter alia to the appellant/ respondent No.6. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State respondents. The learned Single Judge acting on the relevant endorsement of the postal departmen t to the effect that the notice of the writ proceeding had been served on the ap pellant/ respondent No.6, proceeded to hear and dispose of the petition in its a bsence as none by then had entered appearance on his behalf. On a consideration of the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced on the basis th ereof, by the impugned judgment and order the settlement of the pond in favour o f the appellant/ respondent No.6 was set aside. According to the learned Single Judge, the impugned settlement in favour of the appellant/ respondent No.6 by ta king note of the certificate(s) issued by his father Sri Premesh Deb was in depa rture from an essential norm of eligibility prescribed by the NIT. Mr Sarmah has urged that as admittedly the immovable property at all rel evant times stood in the name of the father of the appellant/ respondent No.6, h e (respondent No.6) being one of his legal heirs, the certificates issued by his father were valid and in substantial compliance of Clause-8 of the NIT to that effect and, thus, the judgment and order being patently illegal is liable to be interfered with. As the necessary approval to the impugned settlement had been g ranted by the Government, in terms of Section 63 of the Assam Municipal Act, 195 6 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’), judicial intervention as ma de is unwarranted, he urged. In reply, whereas Ms Goyal has refrained from making any comment on the challenge laid in this appeal, Mr Purkayastha has persuasively endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We have lent our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and hav e also perused the pleadings on record. Admittedly, the appellant/ respondent No .6 did not contest the writ proceeding. On being queried by us, Mr Sarma on inst ructions has submitted that this grievance of the appellant/ respondent No.6 is not pursued for the present. Clause-8 of the NIT (which is in vernacular) on translation reads as her eunder: 8. Tenderers should possess/ own immovable property in their names. It is not disputed before us that the above Clause embodies an indispens able and essential condition of eligibility. In the instant case, the appellant/ respondent No.6 at the time of submission of his tender was not the owner of an y immovable property. He did not possess as well any immovable property in his n ame. Admittedly, the certificates submitted pertained to an immovable property o wned by his father. On being queried by this Court, the parties have admitted th at they are governed by the Dayabhaga Law. In that view of the matter, on the da te of submission of the tender by the appellant/ respondent No.6, he can by no m eans be said to be the legal owner of the immovable property to which the certif icates relate. His tender was, therefore, not in compliance with the requirement of Clause-8 of the NIT. In the above view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the learned S ingle Judge vis-à-vis the eligibility of the writ appellant/ respondent No.6 an d the tenability of the impugned order of settlement in his favour cannot be fa ulted with. The Town Committee as its proceedings dated 12.10.2009 would reveal, wrongly took note of the certificates issued by the father of the appellant/ re spondent No.6 vis-à-vis the immovable property offered and favoured him (appella nt/ respondent No.6) with the settlement though the same (immovable property) at that point of time did neither belong to him in law nor stood in his name as re quired by Clause-8 of the NIT. As a public participatory process had been initia ted by the NIT with the imperative criteria of eligibility as laid down therein, no departure therefrom in the manner as above is permissible. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, to reiterate, is unassailabl e. The challenge thereto fails. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.