WP(C) 4391/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. M.H.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.J.Ghosh, learn ed Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. M.Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the Re spondent No.5. The records in original as placed before the Court have been duly perused. The challenge in the present writ application is against an order-dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Executive Officer-cum-Ex Officio Secretary, Mairabari Anchalik Panchayat whereby the Solabil Meen Mahal has been settled w ith the Respondent No.5 at an amount of Rs. 10,195.00. The only ground of challenge made in the writ application is that the pe titioner having offered Rs. 19,651.00 and his tender being valid, the Anch alik Panchayat could not have accepted the lower offer made by the Respondent No .5 without prior approval of the Government. As no such prior approval was accor ded by the Government, the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.5 is c ontended to be wholly illegal. To enable the Court to dispose of the matter at the admission stage, the records in original as maintained by the Anchalik Panchayat were required to be placed before the Court by the learned Govt. Advocate. The records so placed be fore the Court have been duly perused. Such scrutiny has revealed that no ground whatsoever has been recorded for ignoring of the higher offer made by the petit ioner and that the acceptance of the lower offer of the Respondent No.5 did no t have the -2- prior approval of the Government as required by Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchay at (Financial) Rules, 2002. The settling authority always has the option of refusing to accept a higher offer provided there are good and sufficient reasons to do so. In the present case, the scrutiny of the records by the Court does not reveal any compe lling reason for not accepting the higher offer of the petitioner. That apart, t he requirement imposed by Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchyat (Financial) Rules, 2002 with regard to prior approval of the Government has also not been complied with before settling the Mahal with the Respondent No.5. In view of the above facts, there will no escape from the conclusion tha t the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.5 is contrary to law. The s ame is, therefore, interfered with. The impugned order dated 29.6.2007 is set as ide. The concerned Anchalik Panchayat may now re-settle the Solabil Mahal for th e remaining period of the term in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thi s order or a certified copy thereof. The writ petition consequently is allowed as indicated above.