WP(C) 4856/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The settlement of Baralimari bi-weekly market in favour of the Respondent N.4 f or the financial year 2010-2011 by the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla P arishad vide his communication dated 3.8.2010(Annexure-D) constitutes the subjec t matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. In response to the Notice Inviting Tender(for short hereafter referred t o as ’NIT’) dated 3.5.2010 initiating a process inter alia for settlement of the aforementioned market, the petitioner, Respondent No.14 and others offered thei r bids. Whereas, with his offer of Rs.1,35,500/- the petitioner was third highes t, the Respondent No.14 with his bid of Rs.39,651/- was the second lowest. In al l 11 tenderers were in the fray. According to the petitioner, as the tenderers w ith their quoted rates and placed at Sl Nos 1 and 2 above him had withdrawn thei r tenders he was under the bonafide expectation that the market would be settled with him. However, the impugned order of settlement followed. Being disgruntled thereby he has challenged the same. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No.14. In the counter filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zill Paris had, the following facts have been recited. 1) the tenders at Sl. Nos 1,2,3(petitioner),5 and 7 had been rejected being not in conformity with the NIT stipulations. 2) The tenders at serial Nos 6,8 and 9 though valid, those were withdrawn a nd therefore, were not available for final consideration. 3) The tender of the respondent No.14 had been found valid in all respects. 4) The other tenders being either defective or withdrawn, that of the respo ndent No.14 was accepted and the settlement was made in his favour. Mr Deka by drawing the attention of this court in particular to the stipulation in Clause No.14 of the NIT has urged that as in terms thereof no tenderer could have withdrawn his tender, the settlement of the market in favour of Respondent No.14 in the face of the higher valid offers avai lable, is per se arbitrary and partisan in nature vitiating the same. Moreover, as the impugned order of settlement is apparently in contravention of express NIT stipulations, it ought to be adjudged null and void. Ms Sarma, on the other hand, has submitted that as on a scrutiny of the petitioner’s tender, the same was found to be defective on the grounds b ased on the NIT conditions, this plea is patently untenable in law and on facts . Mr Ahemd, leaned counsel for the respondent No.4 has endorsed th is stand. ‘A bare perusal of the comparative statement projecting the eval uation of the tenders under consideration discloses that the petitioner’s offer had been rejected on two grounds, namely, (1) the value of the land offered in mortgage was inadequate and (2) the tax paying receipts required to be submitte d along with the tender in terms of Clause 8 thereof had not been furnished. Mr Deka has not disputed the on filing of the tax paying receipts along with the tender of the petitioner. This irrefutably endorses the action of the official respondents in rejecting his tender being in violation of an express tender cov enant. The rejection of the petitioner’s tender therefore is unassailable. Thoug h it has been contended on his behalf that withdrawal of a tender once submitte d was impermissible under Clause 14, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the express stand taken by the official respondents a nd the determination that the petitioner’s tender was invalid, this court is not inclined to set at naught the impugned settlement at his instance. In the above premises, the challenge lacks in substance and is negated. The petition is rejected. No costs.