WP(C) 4076/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Since the same arguments have been advanced by the learned counsels appearing fo r the parties to challenge the same settlement order, the writ petitions are dis posed of by this common order. 2. The settlement of the Gogamukh Weekly Market under the Bordoloni Anchalik Panchayat with the respondent No.6 Devajeet Sonowal by the Dhemaji Zi la Parishad is under challenge in these 2 cases. 3. The affidavit filed on 18.8.2010 shows that the respondent No.6 (settlement holder) refused to accept the Court’s notice and he is not present t o defend the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure-C). 4. The petitioner in WP(C) 4076/2010, Sunil Pegu had made the highe st bid of Rs.28,66,501/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs sixty six thousand five hund red one) only, whereas the petitioner in WP(C) 4077/2010, Navajit Doley had made a bid of Rs.24,78,605/- (Rupees twenty four lakhs seventy eight thousand six hu ndred five) only and accordingly the bid of these 2 petitioners were the highest and 5th highest respectively in the tender process. However ignoring the higher offer, the settlement was given to the 18th highest bidder Devajeet Sonowal at his offer of Rs.20,61,990/- (Rupees twenty lakhs sixty one thousand nine hundred ninety) only. 5. It is contended by Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing f or the petitioner Sunil Pegu that highest bid was ignored by the settling author ity on the flimsy ground that the number and the date of the Tender advertisemen t was not mentioned. The learned counsel refers to the prescribed tender form in vernacular to show that although other requirements are reflected in the prescr ibed form, nothing is indicated therein to show that the number and the date of advertisement was also required to be indicated by a tenderer. 6. Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Ch ief Executive Officer of the Dhemaji Zila Parishad from the settlement records submits that the mentioning of the number and the date of advertisement was not an essential requirement to be a valid bid. 7. In so far as the petitioner Navajit Doley is concerned, his bid was considered defective on the ground that he had produced a certificate from t he Gaon Panchayat President. 8. Having considered the tender conditions, I am of the view that r ejection of the tender on the aforenoted grounds was not warranted. 9. Having considered the submissions made and the grounds for non-a cceptance of the higher bids, I am of the view that the higher bids couldn’t hav e been ignored by the Settling Authority in the present cases. Accordingly the s ettlement granted at a lesser bid offered by the respondent No.6 is found to be unjustified and contrary to public interest. 10. Having concluded thus, the impugned settlement passed by the Chi ef Executive Officer, Dhemaji Zila Parishad on 30.6.2010 for the Gogamukh Weekly Market is set aside and quashed. The settling authority is now directed to con sider the bid of the 2 petitioners as valid and take a fresh decision on settlem ent of the market on the merit of the valid bids. 11. The requisite decision of fresh settlement shall be taken by the respondents within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s or der. The writ petition(s) stand allowed accordingly. 12. Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate should send back the settlement records forthwith.