WP(C) 5378/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr N.K. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. The private respondent No.8 is represented by Mr A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel. The official re spondents are represented by Mr N.B. Gogoi, learned Govt Advocate. The petitioner challenges the settlement granted to respondent No.8 of the Moira bari Bi-weekly Market for the period 2010-2011 in pursuant to the NIT dated 6-5- 2010 issued by Moirabari Anchalik Panchayat. The petitioner claims that his bid at Rs.92,751/- was the fifth highest whereas the bid of respondent No.8 at Rs.57 ,707/- was the thirteenth highest bid amongst the sixteen total bids, received b y the settling authority. It is contended by the petitioner that the four higher bids of other tenderers w ere found to be defective because of incomplete documentation and accordingly th e petitioner with his bid of Rs.92,751/- should be considered as the highest bid der in the tender process. The settlement records have been produced by the learned Govt. Advocate which sh ows that the bid of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the val ue of the mortgaged land furnished by the tenderer was found to be inadequate. In the context of the said remark against the tender of the petitioner, Mr Barua , learned counsel refers to Clause 10 of the tender conditions to show that an o pportunity to make good the difference in the value of the mortgaged land, shoul d have been afforded to an otherwise eligible tenderer. But no such opportunity was afforded under Clause 10 for the bid offered by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that only to show undue favour to the respondent No.8, t he curable defect in the bid of the petitioner was emphasized and the settling a uthority proceeded to grant settlement to the respondent No.8 causing substantia l loss of revenue to the Panchayat Authority. A reading of the conditions of the tender shows that an opportunity at the time of execution of agreement should be made available to a tenderer to enable him t o make good the value of the mortgaged land by bringing financially sound person as his guarantor. Accordingly opportunity ought to have been made available to the petitioner under Clause 10 to enable him to bring as his guarantor, a financ ially sound person, who could provide adequate security for the differential val ue of the mortgaged land. Under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 tender of the h ighest bidder is to be accepted by the settling authority and exception can be m ade only with prior approval of the Government. Mr Gogoi, learned Govt. Advocate confirms that no such approval has been obtained by the settling authority to g rant settlement on the lesser bid of respondent No.8 by ignoring the higher bid of other tenderers. In view of above, I hold that the settlement order dated 1-8-2010, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Panchayat in favour of the respondent N o.8 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The Chief Executive Officer of the Morigaon Zilla Parishad is now directed to provide an opportunit y to the petitioner under Clause 10 of the tender conditions. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the land value requirement under Clause 10, the settling auth ority would consider granting settlement of the market in favour of the highest valid bid offered by the petitioner. The necessary exercise in this regard be ca rried out on or before 15-12-2010. Until a fresh decision is taken, status quo on the management of the Moirabari B i-weekly Market shall be maintained. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.