WP(C) 2821/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. H R A Choudhury, learned senior counsel who appears for the pe titioner. Also heard Ms. V L Sinha, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appears for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent No.4 although notice is served upon him. The petitioner, who was one of the tenderer in response to the sale noti ce dated 28.4.2008 issued by the President, Nagaon Zilla Parishad for settlement of, inter alia, the Debasthan Weekly market under Binnakandi Anchalik Panchayat is before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of settlement dated 24.6.200 8 granted in favour of the respondent No.4, Md. Abdul Jalil by ignoring his high er bid. It may be noted that 6 tenders had submitted tenders in response to the aforesai d sale notice dated 28.4.2008. The offer of the writ petitioner at Rs.5,05,000/- was the highest amongst the valid tenderers, whereas the offer of respondent No .4 at Rs.4,71,770/- was the second highest amongst the valid tenderers. It is no t in dispute that the tender of the higher bidders were found to be defective an d therefore were considered invalid. Notwithstanding the offer of the petitioner being the highest and certainly high er than the respondent No.4 the settlement was granted in favour of respondent N o.4. The reason for disregarding the offer of respondent No.4 is revealed from the av erments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the Chief Ex ecutive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad (respondent No.2). In the affidavit it is accepted that the offer of the petitioner was the highest valid tender. But the petitioner’s highest offer was not accepted as it was concluded that a co-partn er of the writ petitioner named Md. Ismail Ali, is a defaulter in an earlier set tlement granted to the said Md. Ismail Ali and since the writ petitioner is a pe rson who is close to Md. Ismail Ali and one of the co-partner of his business gr oup, the higher offer of the petitioner was not accepted and the offer of respon dent No.4 was preferred. Mr. H R A Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the decision not to accept the highest offer requires Government’s prior a pproval under the provisions of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 and in the instant case, the Authorities had not obtained such appro val of the Government, before deciding not to accept the highest offer of the pe titioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with M d. Ismail Ali as has been alleged and he does not have any business deal with th e said Md. Ismail Ali. Accordingly any default of Md. Ismail Ali cannot be made the basis for not considering the valid and acceptable offer given by the petiti oner. It is not in dispute that prior approval of the Government has not been obtained under the provisions of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 and accordingly the impugned settlement order given in favour of the respon dent No.4 is in violation of the provisions of the said Rules, as the offer of t he petitioner was the highest. It is also not disclosed about the business dealings between the petitioner and Md. Ismail Ali so as to make the offer of the petitioner invalid on account of t he default of Md. Ismail Ali. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before taking an adverse decision against him on the ground of Md. Ismail Ali being a defaulter of revenue and und er such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the decision not to act on the t ender of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the impugned settlement order dated 24.6.2008 given by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad in favour of the respondent No.4 with regard to Debasthan Weekly market under Binna kandi Anchalik Panchayat is unsustainable and the same is accordingly quashed. A s a consequence thereof, it is declared that the highest offer given by the peti tioner ought to be considered for granting the said settlement. As 6 months period of settlement is already over, appropriate steps to g ive effect to this Court’s order should be taken by the respondent No.2, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s order. It is ordered accordingly. This writ petition stands allowed in above terms.