WP(C) 4500/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL In all the aforesaid three-writ petitions, order dated 28.07.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Parishad, settling Lahorighat Bi-Weekly Market with the private respondent, namely Md. Musatafa Kamal Hussain is under c hallenge. Since the issues involved in all the three writ petitions are one and the same and since the impugned order has also been challenged on identical grou nd, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard Mr. B Rahman, Dr. B Ahmed, and Mr. PKR Choudhury , learned couns el for the petitioners respectively. The state respondents were represented by M r. BN Gogoi, learned Government Advocate and the private respondents was represe nted by Mr. M Sharma. I have also perused the documents annexed with the writ p etition. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Zilla Parisha d also produced the relevant file. The admitted facts are that Moirabari Anchallik Parishad invited tender s for settlement of the aforesaid Bi-weekly market for the year 2011-12 vide NIT dated 06.05.2011 . In the said NIT, the official bids amount of the market was fixed at Rs. 58, 190/- . As many as 65 tenders were submitted by different perso ns. Finally, large numbers of tenders were withdrawn and some of the tenders wer e also found defective. After rejection of the aforesaid tenders, six tenders we re found valid. In other words, six tenderers remained in the fray for settlemen t of the market. Out of these six tenders, the petitioner in WP ' No. 4401 of 20 11, namely Md. Lokman Hekim was the second highest bidder; petitioner in WP ( C) No. 4222 of 2011, namely Md. Hibjur Rahman stood third and the third petitioner , namely Rafiqul Islam stood fifth. As could be gathered from the records of th e writ petitions, one Md. Mofizuddin is the highest bidder having offered a sum of Rs. 1,97,771/- per month. It may also be mentioned here that the private res pondent with whom the market has been settled was the lowest bidder, having offe red only Rs. 59, 331/-. The impugned settlement order has been challenged basically on the ground th at it is in gross violation of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) R ules, 2002 . For ready reference , the aforesaid sub-rule is quoted below: The tender of highest bidder shall be accepted. Acceptance of tender other than the highest bid shall require the Government prior and formal approval. The aforesaid rule came for consideration before this Court i n several writ petitions. Without multiplying various authorities regarding Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002. I may just refer to the Division Bench judgment, rendered in the case of Nagaon Zilla Parishad -Vs- Raj ia Begum : 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 585. In this judgment, it has been held that if th e settling authority decides to settle the market/ hat with any bidder who is no t the higher bidder, prior formal approval from the state government is a must. A bare reading of sub -rule (10) of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) R ules, 2002 also indicates that the settlement of market with the highest bidder should be rule and settlement with lower bidder should be the exception. At this stage, it may also be mentioned here that the settl ement of the very same market, namely , Lahorighat bi-weekly market also came un der challenge before this Court for the previous year in WP ( C) No.4605 of 2010 and 4822 of 2010 since the market was settled with a lower bidder without prior approval from the government. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 04.09 .2010. The learned State counsel addmitted that in the aforesaid order, this Cou rt directed the Zilla Parishad to settle the market with the highest bidder. In view of the Division Bench Judgment and other judgments , I am also bound to fol low legal principles laid down by this Court, which is also explicit in the lang uage of Rule 47 (10) of the Rules. The learned counsel for the State submitted that market ha s been settled with the lowest bidder since his bid was very near to the officia l bid. The learned counsel also submitted that the Standing committee of the Zi lla Parishad was also of the view that if the market is settled at higher price , it becomes difficult for the lessee to run the market and consequently the gov ernment also looses revenue. Apparently and admittedly, the NIT did not incorporate any condition that the bi ds within a certain range only will be considered. In other words, there is no s tipulation in the NIT that a bid beyond a certain amount would be rejected outr ightly or that such bidder will not be considered as eligible for settlement of market. This apart, I am of the view, if this logic of the state government is accepted, it may lead to arbitrary decision by the settling authority. Besides t his, it will be against the concept of settling the market with the highest bid der. Be that as it may, the market has been settled with the private respondent without prior approval from the government, which is a clear violation of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 . The submission of the learned government advocate that if the market is settl ed at abnormally high rate, the lessee may not be able to run the market and res ultantly the government may also loose revenue. In my considered opinion, if the government is facing such situation in the past, it may insist for advance depo sit of the entire settlement amount/kist. Even otherwise, the settling authorit ies normally collects the bid money in advance, may be in instalments. If the le ssee is not able to run the market, he may be liable for forfeiture of his/her k ist money. In other words, arguments advanced by the learned government advocate is also unacceptable. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 28.07.2011, settling the ma rket with Md. Mufizuddin is hereby set aside. The Morigaon Zilla Parishad is directed to settle the market with the highest b idder. If the highest bidder Md. Mofizuddin has, infact, withdrawn his bid, the Zilla Parishad may proceed to settle the market with the next highest bidder. With the aforesaid direction, all the three writ petitions are disposed of. The entire exercise for fresh settlement shall be completed within one week fro m the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment by the Zilla Parishad .