WP(C) 4458/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respon dent No. 4. 2. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , arises out of a settlement of a bi-weekly market, namely, Arabari Bi-weekly Ba zaar, for the financial year 2009-2010, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender iss ued, in this regard, by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Though the present petitioner’ s bid value, seeking settlement of the said bazaar, was Rs. 14,000/- per month, the State respondents, more specifically, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, have s ettled the said bazaar with respondent No. 4, namely, Md. Abdul Kalam, on the la ter’s bid value of Rs. 8,300/- per month, by making an order, dated 12.10.2009. It is the order, dated 12.10.2009, which stands impugned in this writ petition. 3. Resisting the writ petition, respondent No. 3, namely, the Executive Off icer, Juria Anchalik Panchayat, has filed an affidavit, wherein it has been poin ted out that the General Standing Committee had taken the decision that it would be in public interest to give settlement of the said bazaar in favour of the re spondent No. 4 at his bid value of Rs. 8,300/-, per month, instead of the petiti oner at the latter’s bid value of Rs. 14,000/-, per month, an offer, which was, according to the General Standing Committee, exorbitant and impracticable. The justifications, which the Standing Committee has given, are essentially meant fo r the State Government inasmuch as sub-Rule (10) of Rule 47 of the Assam Panchay at (Financial) Rules, 2002 (in short, ’the Rules’), provides, The tender of hig hest bidder shall be accepted. Acceptance of tender, other than the highest bid , shall require the Government’s prior and formal approval. 5. From a bare reading of the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 47, what becomes more than abundantly clear is that, as a matter of general pra ctice, it is the highest bid, which shall be accepted by the Standing Committee. However, if, for any reason, the Standing Committee finds that the highest bid is not practicable or, for any other reason, not acceptable, the Standing Commit tee cannot give settlement to, or request the Panchayat concerned to give settle ment to, anyone other than the highest bidder except if the Government’s prior a nd formal approval is obtained for making settlement in favour of a person, othe r than the highest bidder. Thus, when a General Standing Committee finds that an offer, though highest, is so exorbitant that it cannot be accepted being imprac ticable, it may justify giving of settlement to the person, who may not be the h ighest bidder, but such settlement cannot be given unless the Government’s prior and formal approval is obtained thereto. 6. In the case at hand, with the justifications, which have been assigned b y the Standing Committee, for not accepting the highest bid value of petitioner and for accepting the lower bid value of the respondent No. 4, the proposal, see king approval for giving settlement to the respondent No. 4, ought to have been forwarded, in the light of the provisions of sub-Rule (10) of Rule 47 of the Rul es, to the State Government and if, on examination thereof, had the State Govern ment found that it would be appropriate to give settlement in favour of the resp ondent No.4, the State Government could have granted its approval, as aforesaid, and it is only upon granting of such approval by the State Government that the settlement could have been made in favour of the respondent No.4. 7. In short, the respondents, before granting settlement of the bazaar in f avour of respondent No. 4, ought to have sent the matter to the Government for o btaining necessary approval, which has, admittedly, not been done in the present case. Without prior approval of the Government, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could n ot have given the settlement of the said bazaar in favour of the respondent No. 4 on a bid value, which was lower than the present petitioner’s offered bid valu e. 8. Situated thus, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the impug ned order, dated 12.10.2009, settling the bazaar, in question, with respondent N o. 4, is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Hence, the settlement is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent N os. 2 and 3 are left at liberty to obtain approval of the Government to the sett lement, which had been given to the respondent No. 4, and, if such approval is g ranted, respondent no. 2 shall act on the approval. Until the time the Governme nt’s approval, as indicated hereinbefore, is obtained, the bazaar, in question, shall be run by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without engaging any outsider including the petitioner and/or respondent No. 4. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. 11. No order as to costs.