WP(C) 3642/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. I. Rofique, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Roy, learned State Counsel. Also heard Mr. M. Hassan, learned counsel for res pondent No.7. Pursuant to the NIT dated 28.5.2011 for settlement of Hadurhat Dharamsal a Dainik Bazar, tenders were submitted by the interested tenderers including the respondent No.7 and the petitioner. While the bid value offered by the petition er was Rs. 1,25,555/-, the bid value offered by the respondent No.7 was Rs. 1,01 ,101/-. Since the bid value was more than Rs. 1 lakh, as per the requirement of the procedure, the tenders were forwarded to Zilla Parishad which decided to set tle the hat with the respondent No.7. According to the petitioner, he being the highest bidder, the Zilla Parishad could not have ignored the same so as to mak e the settlement with the respondent No.7, terming him to be the highest bidder. Mr. Roy, learned State Counsel has produced the relevant records and I h ave gone through the same. Mr. I. Rofique, learned counsel for the petitioner su bmits that when the comparative statement prepared by the Anchalik Panchayat, su ggests that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents, the Zilla P arishad could not have rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner on the gr ound of there being over-writing in the bid value indicated in the tender and th at the petitioner did not submit the Tax Clearance Certificate from the Gaon Pan chayat. On perusal of the records including comparative statement, what I find i s that there is endorsement of the Zilla Parishad in respect of the tenders subm itted by the petitioner as follows :- (1) Bid value over-written in tender paper. (i) Tax Clearance Certificate from Gaon Panchayat is not found with tender p aper. On perusal of the tender paper submitted by the petitioner, the above endorsemen t is found to be correct, inasmuch as, the amount of Rs. 1,25,555/- indicated as the bid value bears the mark of use of whitener and over-writing. Under Clause- 10 requiring the tenderer to submit the required documents, the petitioner has o nly stated in 3 places as ’attached’. Upon verification of the tender documents submitted by the petitioner, the fact of non-submission of the Gaon Panchayat Cl earance Certificate is also found to be correct as the said documents do not con tain the Gaon Panchayat Clearance certificate unlike the other tenderers, who ha d submitted the certificates. Mr. I. Rofique has submitted that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and that the purported over-writing is required to be ignored, inasmuc h as, the intention to offer the bid value at Rs. 1,25,555/- is very clear. He f urther submits that as per his information, the respondent No.7 has expressed hi s desire to withdraw from the contest and accordingly the matter is to be looked into afresh by the Zilla Parishad. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that he has not received any instruction in this regard. Mr. P. Roy, learned State Counsel submits that if the tenders submitted by the petitioner is defective, he is not entitled to get any considered. Considering the matter in its entirety and as agreed to by the learned counsel f or the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Zilla Parishad t o pass appropriate order consistently with the observations made above. Let the order be passed as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate later then 30.11.2011.