WA 7/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C R SARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant (respondent No.8 i n the writ petition) and Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the res pondent No.7 (writ petitioner). Also heard Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocat e, Assam. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2008 passe d by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbere d as WP(C) No.4247 of 2008. By the aforesaid order the learned Single had though t it appropriate to set aside the settlement of the Rupakuchi Parghat for the fi nancial year 2008-2009 made with the present appellant/respondent No.8 by the Ba rpeta Zilla Parishad. 3. The above interference made by the learned Single Judge with the settlem ent in question was on the ground that as the Government reserved price indicate d in the tender notice issued in respect of the Parghat in question was Rs.28,00 0/- the Zilla Parishad was not the competent authority to make the settlement an d the settlement should have been made by the Anchalik Panchayat. The second gro und on which the learned Single Judge had thought it appropriate to interfere wi th the settlement of the appellant is that the appellant had not complied with t he requirement of submission of Bank guarantee while offering security money in terms of clause (2) of the tender notice in question dated 3.5.2008. 4. Under the provisions of Section 109(6) of the Panchayat Act Hats, Ferrie s and Fisheries falling under the territorial jurisdiction of an Anchalik Pancha yat is required to be settled by the Zilla Parishad if the sale value is more th an Rs.1 lakh. In the present case a perusal of the comparative statement of ten derers submitted would indicate that the highest offer for the Parghat was Rs.1, 85,001/-. However, as the tenders quoting amounts higher than the appellant/res pondent No.8 were found to be defective the settlement was given to the appellan t at his tendered price of Rs.1,21,000/-. As under the provisions of Section 109 of the Panchayat Act it is the sale value of the ghat which would determine whe ther the same should be settled by the Anchalik Panchayat or the Zilla Parishad and in the present case the sale value being more than Rs.1,00,000/- we are of t he view that the Zilla Parishad was well within its competence to settle the Par ghat with the appellant-respondent No.8. The contrary finding recorded by the le arned Single Judge on this score, therefore, is interfered with. 5. The second issue arising in the present proceeding is whether the appel lant-respondent No.8 had complied with the requirement spelt out by clause (2) o f the NIT dated 3.5.2008. In this regard we have looked into the terms of the sa id sale notice as well as the bank documents submitted by the appellant-responde nt No.8 and the present respondent NO.7 (writ petitioner). From such perusal wha t we find is that both the aforesaid persons had submitted call deposits which i n the case of the appellant was issued by the Pragjyotish Gaolia Bank whereas in the case of the present respondent No.7 (writ petitioner) the same was issued b y the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. We have compared the two call deposit receipts in question and what we find from the such comparison is that in both cases the security money of Rs.1400/- stood pledged with the Secretary of the An chalik Panchayat to be available on call. The call deposits offered by the two p ersons, therefore, being similar we find no justification, whatsoever, to permit the respondent No.7(writ petitioner) to urge the ground taken. On the said fact s the view that the appellant-respondent No.8 had not complied with clause-(2) o f the NIT dated 3.5.2008 recorded by the learned Single Judge will also not be a cceptable. 6. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that this appeal should b e allowed which we hereby do. The order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned S ingle Judge in WP(C) No.4247 of 2008, accordingly, stands set aside. Consequenti al action will be taken by the concerned authority forthwith.