WP(C) 3780/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sor en, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Mr. Kaiyum, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. None appears for the other respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order of settl ement dated 22.06.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Paris had settling Rupahi daily market with the respondent No.7 for the Panchayat year 2010-11 i.e. with effect from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. The grounds on which th e order of settlement has been challenged is that though the petitioner offered Rs.2,85,999/-, he has not been settled with the market in question and the same has been settled with the respondent No.7 at a much lower bid i.e. Rs.2,26,999/- . It is not in dispute that though the petitioner has offered more than wh at was offered by the respondent No.7, his tender paper was rejected for non-sub mission of the required documents i.e. land valuation certificate, tax clearance certificate, non-encumbrance certificate, etc. The said documents, in terms of the conditions in the NIT dated 03.05.2010 have admittedly not been furnished wi th the tender papers submitted by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has failed to submit the required papers in terms o f the NIT dated 03.05.2010, his tender paper has rightly been rejected and conse quently though he has offered an amount higher than the amount offered by the re spondent No.7, the action on the respondent authority could not be faulted with, the petitioner’s tender papers having been found to be detected. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and h ence the same is dismissed. No costs.