WP(C) 3136/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Both the writ petitions pertain to the grievance raised in respe ct of the settlement of weekly market called Rajmai Weekly Market, Sibsagar, in favour of the respondent No. 5. Admittedly the bid offered by the petitioners ar e higher than the bid offered by the private respondent. While the petitioner in the first writ petition offered bid value of Rs. 8,11,000/-, the petitioner in the second writ petition offered bid value of Rs. 7,99,999/-. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 with whom the settlement has been made offered his bid val ue of Rs. 6,99,979/-. According to the respondents, the petitioner in the first writ p etition did not submit sales tax and income tax clearance certificate. During th e course of hearing of the writ petitions when it was found that such certificat es are available with the tender documents, the respondents were directed to cla rify the position. It is the stand of the respondents that when the petitioner h ad submitted the tender, same did not contain the sales tax and income tax clear ance certificates, but later on i.e. after preparation of the comparative statem ent etc., the certificates were placed with the tender documents by way of manip ulation. In this connection, the authority of the Zilla Parishad has conducted a n enquiry and as per the sale enquiry report available on record, the income tax and sales tax clearance certificates were not available alongwith the tender do cuments, but later on were inserted. The tender submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3136/08 wa s rejected on the ground of non-availability of the required documents. On the o ther hand, the tender submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3639/08 was rej ected on the ground that the petitioner’s name is not found in the Jamabandi. Ho wever, in the remarks column of the comparative statement, it was indicated that the land valuation certificate submitted by the petitioner is in his name. I have heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitione r in the first writ petition as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for th e petitioner in the second writ petition. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, le arned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for t he respondent No. 5. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. G.A., Assam has also made submissions in reference to the records. As noticed above, it is the definite case of the respondents tha t the tender submitted by the petitioner in the first writ petition did not cont ain income tax and sales tax clearance certificate. Such a plea on the part of t he respondents finds support from the enquiry conducted by the Zilla Parishad. I n such a situation, no direction can be issued for settlement of the market with the petitioner. As regards the plea of the respondents in respect of second peti tioner that his name does not appear in the Jamabandi, but appears in the land v aluation certificate, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a r eference to the tender documents of the respondent No. 5, submits that same is a lso the case with the respondent No. 5. Upon verification of the records, it is found that in the Jamabandi the name of the second writ petitioner is not includ ed. Unlike the respondent No. 5, his tender documents also do not contain the la nd certificate. The tender documents of the respondent No. 5 apart from containi ng the land certificate also contain the copy of the Jamabandi which does not co ntain in his name. It is his mother who has sworn an affidavit that she would st and surety for her son. It is in this context, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel fo r the petitioner submits that since the Jamabandi contains the name of the fathe r of the petitioner, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are on equal f ooting and that being the position, the tender submitted by the petitioner could not have been rejected and instead, ought to have been accepted. He submits tha t the petitioner being the valid highest tenderer, he is entitled to get the set tlement. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3136/08 submits that before coming to the conclusion regarding non-submissio n of the income tax and sales tax clearance certificate, the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity of being heard. From the aforesaid discussions and consideration of the material s on record what has transpired is that disputed questions of fact are involved. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter shou ld go back to the authority for consideration of the same afresh upon hearing th e parties involved. It will be open for the authority to cancel the present tend er process and to initiate fresh process, if the situation so demands. Whatever may be the decision in the matter, same shall be done as expeditiously as possib le preferably within 31.12.2008. With the above directions, writ petitions are disposed of.