WP(C) 3883/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI Two writ petitioners had filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India, challenging the order of settlement dated 6.7.2011 issued b y the Chief Executive Officer, Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad, settling the Assam Medi cal College Auto Stand, for short, Auto Stand, under the Lahowal Anchalik Pancha yat for the period 1.6.2011 to 30.6.2011 in favour of the respondent No. 7 pursu ant to Notice Inviting Tender, for short, NIT dated 25.5.2011 issued by the Laho wal Anchalik Panchayat with a direction to the authorities to settle the Auto St and in favour of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Als o heard Ms. Kalyani Devi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of th e respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. 3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7. 4. By order dated 3.8.2011, on the prayer of the learned counsel fo r the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed in so far as the petitioner No . 2 was concerned with a liberty to him to file a separate writ petition, if so advised. 5. A NIT was issued by the respondent No. 3 on 25.5.2011 inviting t enders from eligible tenderers for settlement of ghats/markets for the period 1. 7.2011 to 30.3.2012 including the Auto Stand. The last date of receipt of tender s was fixed at 1 P.M. of 8.6.2011 and the tenders were to be opened on the same day at 2 P.M. Seventeen tenderers including the petitioner and the respondent No . 7 had submitted their tenders for grant of settlement to operate the Auto Stan d. The bid offered by the respondent No. 7 is Rs. 1,70,000/- and the bid offered by the petitioners is Rs. 1,00,000/-. One Sri Lalit Mech offered the highest bi d value of Rs. 1,90,000/-. 6. Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submit s that there are four other bids which were higher than the bid of the petitione r. However, all the aforesaid bids including the bid of the respondent No. 7 was defective and invalid and, therefore, the petitioner was the highest valid tend erer. 7. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petition er submits that the settlement offered to the respondent No. 7 is palpably illeg al and cannot be sustained. 8. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6. No records have also been produced by the learned Government Advocat e representing the aforesaid respondents. 9. The learned Government Advocate submits that the comparative sta tement of the bids offered by the tenderers does not reflect that the tender of the respondent No. 7 is defective and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 10. The NIT required the tenderers, amongst others, to submit alongw ith the tenders, a photograph attested by a gazetted officer and Clearance Certi ficate from the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad. 11. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bijulibari Multipurpose Development Society Vs. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2003(3) GLT 503, to contend that submission of Clearan ce Certificate as well as putting of signature of the tenderer on the tender for m are essential conditions and if the same are not complied with by a tenderer, the tender cannot be regarded as a valid tender. A perusal of the comparative st atement would indicate that the respondent No. 7, apart from not enclosing Tax F ree Certificate from the Gaon Panchayat, also did not put his signature on the f orm and that the form has been wrongly written and, as such, the law laid down i n Bijulibari(supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case, he submits. 12. Perusal of the NIT shows that the minimum yearly fix value for t he Auto Stand was fixed at Rs. 60,000/-. In the comparative statement available at Annexure- 2 under the Heading - ’Tax Free Certificate , so far as Lalit Mech is concerned, ’Nil’ is written and similarly, in respect of him, in the remarks column, it has been indicated that there was no Tax Free Certificate from the G aon Panchayat as well as over writing. In respect of the respondent No. 7, under the Heading - Tax Free Certificate , ’yes’ is written but in the remarks colum n, it has been indicated that there is no Tax Free Certificate from the Gaon Pan chayat. It has also been indicated in the remarks column that there is no signat ure on the form and though not clearly legible, it has also been indicated that that form has been wrongly written. With regard to the petitioner, it was indica ted in the remarks column that all the documents had been submitted. 13. While it is true as contended by the learned Government Advocate that there is nothing to show that the tender of the respondent No. 7 is defect ive or for that matter of any other tenderer, what is important is to note that the highest tenderer was not offered the settlement. 14. Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, provides that tender of the highest bidder is to be accepted and for acceptance of tender other than the highest bi dder, prior approval of the Government is required. It would appear to this Cou rt that the expression highest bidder would necessarily imply highest valid bidd er. The order dated 6.7.2011 does not recite that any prior approval of the Gove rnment was obtained in making settlement of the Auto Stand in favour of the seco nd highest bidder and, therefore, it would be reasonable to hold that the tender of the highest bidder was rejected by necessary implication in view of the non submission of Tax Free Certificate from Gaon Panchayat as recorded in the remar ks column. It cannot be said with certainty as to whether the Tax Free Certific ate was annexed with the tender of the respondent No. 7 in view of the inherent contradiction occasioned by endorsement made in the column meant for Tax Free C ertificate and column for remarks . When there is a categorical assertion in t he form of ’yes’ in the column meant for Tax Free Certificate , the remarks tha t there is no Tax Free Certificate from the Gaon Panchayat may not be taken cogn izance of and the tender of the respondent No. 7 cannot be invalidated on the gr ound of non furnishing of Tax Free Certificate. 15. Mr. Choudhury is very emphatic in his submission that solely on the ground of there being no signature of the tenderer on the tender form, the t ender of the respondent No. 7 is invalid and liable for rejection. He submits th at, apparently, the settling authority, despite the infirmity in the tender of t he respondent No. 7, had proceeded to make the settlement in his favour ignoring the essential conditions of the notice inviting tender. 16. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a te nder submitted without the signature of the tenderer in the tender form is a val id tender. Signing in the tender form by the tenderer gives authenticity to the identity of the tenderer concerned and cannot be construed to be a mere formalit y. Signature on the form ensures that fictitious and bogus persons cannot submit tenders. A tenderer submitting his tender without any signature may resile by s howing that the offer was not made by him. 17. In Bijulibari(supra), Division Bench of this Court had noted thus - It is also of immense importance to note that the NIT and the t ender form, which is required to be filled up by the tenderers, cannot be read i n isolation by keeping them in watertight compartments nor can the same be read separately from each other. When read together, it becomes crystal clear that fi lling up of the tender form in accordance with the requirements of the form is a n essential condition of the NIT and if a form is not filled up in accordance wi th the requirements of the tender form, such a tender cannot be said to be valid . Thus, though the NIT does not mention that tenderer has to put its/his signatu re on the tender form in the presence of a gazetted officer, the fact remains th at the tender form imposes such a condition and since the same has not been comp lied with by the appellant, its tender could not have been regarded as a valid t ender. 18. In the present case, of course, there was no requirement of the tenderer putting his signature on the tender form in presence of a gazzetted off icer. However, as it has been noted above in the instant case, the tenderer did not at all put his signature on the tender form. 19. In view of the aforesaid, the tender of the respondent No. 7 was invalid and was not even eligible for consideration of its bid amount. Accordi ngly, the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 7 is set asid e and quashed. 20. The respondent authorities will now settle the Auto Stand in acc ordance with law. No costs.