WP(C) 4118/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Gogoi, learned co unsel for the respondents. These two writ petitions involving a common question of law are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In WP(C) No. 4117/2010, Pachim Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat , by the notice dated 26.4.10 invited tender from the interested persons for settlem ent of Ghats and Fisheries including Lengeriajhar Market for the year 2010-2011 from Ist July, 2010 to 30th June, 2011). In response to the NIT, the petitioner s along with two other submitted their tenders for Lengeriajhar Market. The peti tioner offered his bid at Rs. 1,05,001/- while the private respondent offered hi s bid at Rs. 93,000/-. There was also another tenderer who offered his bid at Rs . 91,000/-. The comparative statements prepared by the Pachim Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat is found at Annexure-2. Much to the consternation of the petitioner , the respondent No.6 was settled with the Hat though he was found to be the hig hest bidder. The contention of the petitioner is that the settlement of the H at with the lower bidder such as Respondent No.6 is in breach of Rule 47(10) Ass am Panchayat (Financial ) Rules, 2002 which provides that acceptance of bid oth er than the highest bid needs prior and formal approval of the Government. In th e instant case, according to the petitioner, no such approval was obtained bef ore settling the hat with the respondent No.6. The respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition through the respondent No.5, who is the Block Developme nt Officer cum-Secretary, Pachim Mangaldoi Anchalik Panchayat, Darrang. Interest ingly, in supporting the case of the respondents, the submission made by him in this petition it appears that they have endorsed the case of the petitioner. On last occasion , Mr Gogoi was asked to obtain necessary instructions and produce the tender files to justify the settlement of the hat in favour of the second li st respondent No.6. Some scraps of papers have been produced by the learned St ate counsel and on the basis of which he submits that the tender of the petition er was rejected as he did not submit the Land Valuation Certificate in contraven tion of clause 16(d) of the NIT. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the comparative statements prepared by the respondent authorities and submits t hat the Land Valuation Certificate was indeed submitted by the petitioner and hi s guarantor. Thus, according to the petitioner, the justification made by the re spondents for rejecting the bid of the petitioner who is the highest bidder do es not hold water in the face of the comparative statement at Annexure-2, which was prepared by none other that the respondents themselves. On a comparative reading of the writ petitions as well as the af fidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.5 and from the comparative sta tements, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitione r. The respondents have clearly committed illegality in rejecting the tender of the petitioner and in awarding the tender to the respondent No.6. The settlemen t of the hat in favour of the respondent No.6 is also arbitrary and smack of ma lafide. In the view that I have taken, the settlement of the hat in favour of the respondent No.6 calls for interference by this court. Coming now to WP(C) No. 4118/10, the petitioner in this case su bmitted his tender in respect of Ramhari Market in response to the NIT dated 26 .4.10. Nine other persons also submitted their bids. At Rs. ‘1,64,300 /-, the bid of the petitioner turned out to be the highest, yet the bid of the respond ent No.6 at Rs. 2,51,111/- i.e. lower than that of the petitioner was accepted w hereupon he came to be settled with the Ramhari Market. To justify the impugned action, the respondent No.5 filed his affidavit in opposition who also supporte d the case of the petitioner. The contention of the learned State counsel that t he bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not furnish the land valuation certificate is also contrary to the materials on record as seen f rom the comparative statements prepared by the respondent authorities. No other material is available which could validly justify the settlement of the hat with the respondent No.6. As in the WP(C) No. 4117/10, the impugned action of the r espondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary warranting the interference by th is court. For the foregoing reason, both the writ petitions are allowed. T he impugned order dated 9.7.10 in respect of the Lengeriajhar market and the con sequential order dated 16.7.10 settling this market with the respondent No.6 are hereby quashed. Similarly the impugned order dated 9.7.10 in respect of the Ram hari Market shall also stands quashed. The next question to be considered as to whether a positive direction can be issued by this court for settlement of the hat with the petitioner. As already noted, as the only reason set up by the res pondent authorities in rejecting the tender of the two petitioners i.e for non s ubmission of the land valuation certificate has been found cannot be without an y foundation, there is no reason as to why a positive direction cannot be issu ed against the respondent authorities for settlement of the hats in respect of both the petitioners. It is a settled proposition of law that when the range of discre tion has been cut down to such an extent that only one decision is possible, the court may specifically direct the authority to act in that particular way (Unio n of India- Vrs- Anglo-Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718). In the instant case al so, as found by me, when only one decision is possible on the facts of the case, there is no legal impediment in directing the respondent authorities to settle both the hats, namely, Lengeriajhar Market and Ramhari Market to the petitioners of the two writ petitions. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to complete the exercise on or before 20.12.10.