WP(C) 3879/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL The petitioner herein is challenging the settlement of Billgaon Weekly Market se ttled by Golaghat Zilla Parishad in favour of respondent No.6, namely, Biren Bor a for the year 2011-12. Heard Mr. BN Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also he ard Mr. P Roy, learned Govt. Advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pet itioner has quoted Rs.1 lakh 25 thousand and three hundred ninety nine against t he bid amount of Rs. 1 lakh, 25 thousand two hundred five offered by respondent No.6. In other words, according to the learned counsel despite the petitioner be ing the highest bidder, the market has not been settled with him. The learned co unsel also submitted that initially the Zilla Parishad had decided to settle the market with him but with malafide intention, the remarks given in the comparati ve statement was erased and a fresh remark was given in favour of Biren Bora. A photocopy of the comparative statement has been annexed with t he writ petition. From the said comparative statement, it appears to me that ini tially a favourable remark was given against the writ petitioner’s bid. Subseque ntly, the remark was erased. Even otherwise the impugned order of settlement cannot sustain i n law in as much as the settlement order has been issued on 03.07.2011. Apparent ly, 03.07.2011 was a holiday being Sunday and as such no settlement order could have been issued on holiday. Besides this, the settlement order is also dehorse to Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat ( Financial) Rules, 200,2 which stipulates that if the marke t is settled to a person other than the highest bidder, the authority has to ob tain prior approval from the government. In the case before me, the impugned order is totally silent about ap proval from the government. On this score alone , the settlement order has to be set aside. Mr. Roy, learned Government advocate submits that the market was no t settled with the highest bidder in the interest of public. According to the le arned counsel, if a person quotes exhorbitantly high bid, ultimately the custom ers and vendors suffer in as much as the settlement order realises the money fro m them. If that be the reason behind settling the market with the lower bi dder, the tendering authority should have clarified it in the NIT that no bid be yond a certain amount will be considered. However, no such stipulation was made in the NIT. At the same time, there is only a difference of less than Rs. 200/- in between the bid amount of the petitioner and the respondent No. 6. Hence, th e justification for settling the market with Biren Bora is also not acceptable. In the result , the writ petition stands allowed. The settlement o f the market with respondent No.6 vide order dated 03.07.2011 is hereby set asid e. The Golaghat Zilla Parishad is directed to settle the market with the writ petitioner forthwith. This direction has been made since there is no adverse rem ark against the writ petitioner in the comparative statement. At the same time, a cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed upon the Golaghat Zilla Parishad for settling the market illegally with respondent No.6. The cost shall be paid to the writ petitioner.