WP(C) 4864/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA The petitioner herein calls in question the legality and validity of the order d ated 22.06.2010 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Nagaon whereby and whereunder Khar ikhana Weekly Bazar has been settled with the lowest bidder Md. Abdul Mazid Tapa dar, respondent no. 7 for the year 2010-2011. 2. Considering the grievance raised in this petition and also as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being di sposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The facts of the case in brief is narrated hereunder; The Kharikhana weekly market falls under Dholpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat, Nagaon whereby the aforesaid Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice inviting tender (for short ’NIT’) for the period of 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 for settlement of Kharikhana weekly market alongwith other hats. The date for submission of tender paper was fixed on 16.06.2010. In the said tender there were certain conditions . The conditions relevant for the instant case read as follows: 1. Tenderers should submit tenders in a form supplied by Dholpukhuri Anchalik Pa nchayat only; 2. The markets having sale value more than Rs.1 Lakh will be settled by Zilla Pa rishad; 3. The highest bidder will be preferred. 4. The lowest bid value of Kharikhana weekly market has been fixed at Rs.1,53,89 0/-. 4. All together 7 (seven) numbers of tenderers participated in the tender p rocess in respect of Kharikhana weekly market. The comparative table of the 7 te nderers are quoted hereunder- Sl. No. Name Amounts quoted (in Rs.) 1. Md. Farizul Islam 2,81,000.00 2. Md. Farzan Ali 1,91,000.00 3. Md. Moksed Ali Barbhuiya 3,11,000.00 4. Md. Abdul Sohid 3,25,000.00 5. Md. Abdul Mazid Tapadar 2,04,300.00 6. Md. Kamal Uddin 2,41,000.00 7. Md. Nazim Uddin Kha 2,20,000.00 5. Since the bid value offered by the eligible highest bidder was found to be more than Rs.1Lakh, the tenders were forwarded to Zilla Parishad, Nagaon for doing the needful in accordance with law. The General Meeting of the Zilla Paris had under General Standing Committee headed by the Chief Executive Officer was h eld on 01.07.2010 and accepted the tender of respondent No.6. Accordingly settle d the same vide impugned order dated 22.06.2010 and an order dated 06.07.2010 wa s issued in favour of respondent No.6 directing to deposit 30% of annual bid val ue within 07.07.2010 in the Office of the Zilla Parishad. The action of the resp ondent No.3 in settling the market is under challenge in the instant writ procee ding. 6. Heard Mr. BC Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. PK Deka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G Soren, learned State counsel for the State respondents. 7. Mr. Das learned Sr. counsel would contend that the settlement of Kharikh ana Weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.6 is required to be interfered with being violative of Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 20 02 (for short ’Rules 2002’) since no prior and formal approval was obtained from the Government in accepting the lowest bid in preference of the highest bid. 8. Mr. Das has further submitted that this Court vide order dated 03.09.201 0 directed the instant case to be listed alongwith WP(C) No.3988/2010. The said writ petition was listed for admission hearing on 19.11.2010. However, the insta nt petition was not listed alongwith the said petition. This Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties in WP(C) No.3988/2010 and upon pe rusal of pleadings set forth by the parties, set aside and quashed the impugned order of settlement dated 22.06.2010, passed in favour of respondent No.6 being violative of Rule 47(10) of the Rules, 2002, since no prior and formal approval was obtained from the Government in accepting the lowest bid in preference of th e highest bid as provided under Rule 47(10) of the Rules, 2002. Mr. Das has therefore submitted that the present case in hand being squa rely covered by the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3988/2010, similar direction may be issued in the instant case also. 9. To the aforesaid submission of Mr. Das, Mr. Soren, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that issue involved in both the writ petitions being same, order passed in WP(C) No.3988/2010 covers this case also. 10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3988/2010. Chall enge made and grievance raised in both the writ petitions being exactly same, th e instant writ petition is also disposed of with the same direction issued in WP (C) No.3988/2010. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order of settlement dated 22.06.2010 passed in favour of respondent No.6 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 is dire cted to pass fresh order of settlement of the market for the remaining part of t he year taking into account the tenders submitted by the tenderers pursuant to t he NIT issued vide No.DAP/1/2008-09 dated 30.04.2010. The fresh order shall be p assed in accordance with law within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date o f receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. 12. In the meanwhile, the Kharikhana Weekly Market shall be run by the respo ndent No.3. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the above direction. No costs.