WP(C) 5730/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A POTSANGBAM Heard Mr. AK Purakayastha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H.N. Phuka n, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf the official respondents. [2] Office note dated 25.08.2010 indicates that as per the information rece ived from the Postal Department, notice upon the respondent No. 6 was delivered on 15.7.2010 but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 6 . In view of the above, this case is proceeded ex-parte against the respondent N o. 6. [3] The issue involved in this case is simple and uncomplicated as it pertai ns to determination of eligibility of a competing tenderer in accordance with t he conditions stipulated in the NIT dated 02.06.2009 which was issued by the Cha irman, Sarupathar Town Committee, Sarupathar, for settlement of Chatiani Public Pond. It is to be understood that out of three items which have been put for set tlement under the aforesaid NIT, the petitioner is concerned only with Sl. No. 3 i.e. Chatiani Public Pond. [4] Admittedly, the petitioner was not the highest bidder nor the second hig hest bidder but he was the third highest bidder who submitted all the valid docu ments as required by the NIT. After a threadbare discussion, the Sarupathar Town Committee in its meeting held on 18.6.2009, came to the conclusion that the fir st and second highest bidders were found disqualified due to non furnishing of c ertificate of possessing immovable properties in their names and as such a resol ution was taken to cancel the tender of the first and second highest bidders. Th e Committee also took a further resolution to settle the Chatiani Public Pond w ith the petitioner at the bid value of Rs. 15,500/- and this resolution was sub mitted to Director of Municipal Administration, Dispur, for necessary approval w hich is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. [5] While awaiting for approval of the resolution as referred to above from the Director of Municipal Administration, the Town committee turned around and t ook another decision on 12.10.2009 recommending the case of the respondent No. 6 for settlement of Chatiani Public Pond, purportedly on the ground that father o f the respondent No. 6 has issued a no-objection certificate for use of the fami ly property/land which is under a joint Hindu family. [6] However, the aforesaid decision of the respondents in recommending the c ase of the respondent No. 6 is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the requirement of the NIT is the production of the requisite certificate at the ti me of submission of tender and this condition alone would determine the eligibil ity of a tenderer and in absence of any condition/ clause in the NIT enabling a tenderer to submit the requisite certificate at a subsequent stage, the very act ion of the respondents cannot stand legal scrutiny of this court. [7] There is a considerable force in the argument advanced by Mr. Purakayast ha. According to him, the parties in the case are bound by the terms and conditi on incorporated in the NIT and award or settlement of the Pond in question canno t be made on any consideration which are contrary to the terms and conditions of the NIT. As against this proposition, no effective argument is advanced by Mrs . Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate except by referring to para 6 of the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. Para 6 deals with the concept of Hi ndu undivided family where the father of the family can authorize any of his chi ldren to use his land and utilize a no objection certificate thereto. This conte ntion could have been accepted in a case for division of family property but the fact remains that parties in the contract shall remain bound by the terms and c onditions of the NIT unless such terms and conditions are changed with the conse nt of the parties. This is not the case of the respondents that the terms and co ndition of the NIT have been changed with the consent of the parties or by issui ng a subsequent corrigendum to the NIT. [8] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this court is of the con sidered view that the communication dated 15.12. 2009 settling the pond in favou r of the respondent No. 6 is liable to be quashed as not sustainable in law and accordingly, the impugned communication dated 15.12. 2009 is hereby quashed. The respondents, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 and 5 are hereby directed to settle the pond in question in accordance with the earlier recommendation of the town Committee dated 18.6.2009 within a period of two months from the date o f receipt of a certified copy of this order. [9] The petitioner shall be at liberty to obtain a certified copy of this or der and submit the same to the respondents for compliance. [10] With the above observations and direction, this petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.