WP(C) 4937/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. B. Chakrabory, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hear d Mr. U. Rajbanshi, learned standing counsel, Transport Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, IWT ap pears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. One Shri Sunonjoy Gogoi has filed an application for impleading him as a respondent in the present proceeding. Since the matter is at the very initial s tage and since according to the court the said party does not come into the pict ure as yet, it is considered not necessary to implead the said applicant as a re spondent in the present proceeding. However, Mr. Z. Hasan, learned counsel appea ring for the said Shri Sunonjoy Gogoi will be heard. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 26-5-2011 was issued by the respond ent No. 4 inviting tenders for settlement of the Dibru-Kachari-Oriumghat ferry s ervice for the financial year 2011-2012. According to the petitioner, three tend erers including petitioner submitted tender. On opening of the tenders, a compar ative statement was prepared mentioning the respective bids of the tenderders a s follows :- 1. Md. Ramiz Uddin Ahmed Rs. 21,00,786/- 2. Sahidur Rahman (petitioner) Rs. 18,00,000/- 3. Sri Sunonjoy Gogoi Rs. 15,74,845/- From the comparative statement it is seen that the petitioner is the sec ond highest bidder offering Rs. 18,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner th at the bid of the highest tenderer Md. Ramiz Uddin Ahmed was rejected as being d efective. Being the highest valid tenderer, the petitioner had a reasonable and bonafide expectation that he would be offered the settlement. In-stead, the Govt . of Assam in the Transport Department vide the communication dated 29-8-2011 in formed the respondent No. 3 that all the three tenders were invalid and therefor e, the said authority was requested to go for fresh tender. It is this communica tion, which is under challenge in the present proceeding. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed an affidavit. In para-3 of the sa id affidavit it has been stated that as per the comparative statement, one Ram iz Uddin Ahmed had offered an amount of Rs. 21,00,786, which was the highest bid followed by the petitioner who had offered Rs. 18,00,000/-. The third tenderer Sri Sunonjoy Gogoi had offered Rs. 15,74,845/-. In para-4 of the said affidavit, the said respondents have stated that the highest bidder did not deposit the re quisite earnest money. In so far the tender of the petitioner is concerned, it w as found to have complied with all the requirements except police verification r eport. The tender documents of the 3rd tenderer was also found to be in order. I n para-5 of the said affidavit the said respondents have stated that the respond ent No. 4 had recommended the settlement of the ferry service in favour of the p etitioner. The Government being the authority to make the settlement under the C ontrol and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968, all the documents were forwarded t o the Government for doing the needful. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed their affidavit. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ten der of the petitioner was valid in all respects and the settling authority commi tted a manifest error in holding the tender of the petitioner as invalid. Regard ing the police verification report, Mr. Chakraborty submits that from the terms and conditions of tender, which is on record, there is no such requirement for s ubmission of police verification report. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit stating that there is no requirement to furnish police verification r eport along with the tender documents. Mr. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, IWT fairly submits that from the t erms and conditions of the tender it is quite clear that there is no such requir ement and in fact the department had recommended the settlement of the ferry ser vice in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Rajbanshi, learned standing counsel, Trans port Department candidly submits that in spite of several reminders no instructi ons have been furnished to him. No records have also been handed over to him. He submits that the court may pass such order as would be justified in the facts a nd circumstances of the case. Mr. Z. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for Shri Sunonjoy Gogoi, the thi rd tenderer, submits that he is presently operating the ferry service on adhoc b asis and the present arrangement should be permitted to be continued till settle ment is made as per the fresh NIT. He further submits that there is scope for ne gotiation between the parties. The rival submissions advanced at the bar have received the due and anxi ous consideration of this court. I have perused the terms and conditions of the tender, which is marked a s Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On perusal of the same I do not find that the re is any requirement of submitting police verification report along with the te nder documents. In fact the IWT authorities had noticed this aspect and finding the tender of the petitioner valid, had recommended settlement in his favour. Un der such circumstances, I am of the view that the decision of the Government in the transport department to treat the tender of the petitioner as invalid is not justified. Though there is no dispute to the proposition that the settling auth ority can withdraw a tender at any stage prior to its finalisation but in the ci rcumstances of the present case, the decision taken that there is no valid bidde r out of the three tenderers is not correct. In that view of the matter, the communication dated 29-8-2011 is interfe red with. The same is hereby set aside. The settling authority will now make the settlement in terms of the recommendation made. Since the settlement is for the financial year 2011-2012, the respondent No. 1 is directed to make the settleme nt within 15 days from today. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. No cost.