WP(C) 4129/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI By tender notice, dated 06-07-2009, issued by the respondent No. 4, name ly, President, Sapekhati Anchalik Panchayat, Sivasagar, tenders were invited for settlement of Sapekhati Weekly Market, for the financial year 2009-2010. Amongs t others, the petitioner and respondent No. 5, namely, Sri Mohan Baruah, submitt ed their tender papers. While the petitioner’s bid value was Rs. 3,84,999/-, the bid value of the respondent No. 5 was Rs. 3,98,990/-. By order, dated 07-09-200 9, the said market was settled by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chief Execut ive Officer, Sibsagar Zilla Parishad, Sivasagar, and President, Sibsagar Zilla P arishad, respectively, with respondent No.5 and it is the settlement, so granted in favour of the respondent No. 5, which stands impugned in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. RP Kakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. VL Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos . 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. H Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, and Mr. B Chakravarty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 3. The settlement, granted in favour of respondent No. 5, stands impugned o n four specific grounds. Broadly speaking the grounds are (i) that the bid value of respondent No. 5 was less than that of the petitioner, (ii) that the photogr aph of the guarantor, which was to be affixed to the tender papers, had not been affixed by respondent No. 5 on his tender papers, (iii) that in terms of the te nder notice, successful tenderer was required to deposit 50% of the bid value wi thin 24 hours, whereas respondent No. 5 deposited less than 50% of the tender va lue with the respondents/authorities concerned, on 08-09-2009, the date of settl ement, granted in favour of respondent No.5, being 07.09.2009, (iv) that the ten derer was required to be a person, who holds, in his own name, a patta of a peri odic patta land and the land value was required to be, at least, as much as the tender value of the bidder concerned. 4. However, as regards the petitioner’s plea that the bid of the respondent No. 5 was less than that of the petitioner, it may be noted that at the time of hearing, it, now, emerges, as already indicated above, that the petitioner’s bi d value was Rs. 3,84,999/-, whereas the bid value of the respondent No. 5 was Rs . 3,98,990/-; hence, the respondent No. 5’s offer was higher than that of the pr esent petitioner. It is, therefore, not correct to contend, as has been contende d by the petitioner, that the bid value of respondent No.5 was lower than that o f the present petitioner. 5. Though it has been contended, on behalf of respondent No. 5, that the re cords reveal that the guarantor’s photograph stood affixed to the tender papers, what transpires from the materials placed on record is that on the objection be ing raised at the time of scrutiny of the tender papers that no photograph of t he guarantor stood affixed thereto. It, therefore, clearly follows that the peti tioner has rightly contended that the photograph of the guarantor did not stand affixed to the tender papers and that it was only on objection raised at the tim e of scrutiny that the photograph was affixed to the tender papers. Even if, for a moment, this aspect is ignored, what cannot be ignored is the fact that the n on-encumbrance certificate, which the guarantor had offered, was in respect of D ag Nos. 1336, 1422 and 909 of periodic patta No. 108 of Mouza-Sapekhati, whereas except Dag No. 1336, the land, covered by the remaining two other dag numbers, do not belong to the guarantor. This apart, and more importantly, the petitioner did not own any periodic patta land, which was, as already indicated above, one of the requirements of the tender notice. 6. Coupled with the above, there is no dispute that the bid of the responde nt No. 5 was as high as Rs. 3,98,990/-; but the land value certificate, submitte d by the respondent No. 5, shows that the value of the land, which was offered a s security, was Rs. 3,30,000/-. Thus, the offer of the respondent No. 5 was not appropriately secured. 7. Be that as it may, what, now, needs to be noted is that Clause 5 of the tender notice contained the terms and conditions of the settlement. The terms an d conditions of the settlement clearly informed the tenderers that in the event of finalization of the settlement in favour of a successful tenderer, 50% of the bid value has to be deposited within 24 hours and the remaining 50% of the seco nd installment has to be paid within 31-12-2009, or else, the settlement shall b e rejected and the Anchalik Panchayat would, then, be entitled to collect toll o n its own. The condition, so imposed, also stipulated that if the deposit was no t made within 24 hours, then, the eligible second highest tenderer shall have to be given the settlement and that the highest bidder would not be entitled to ra ise any objection thereto. The conditions, so contained, further stipulated that if a successful tenderer does not abide by the condition, so prescribed, namely , that he does not deposit 50% of the tender value within the given time-frame o f twenty four hours, he would be debarred from participating, in any of the tend er process for settlement of markets, for a period of five years. Thus, the stip ulations, so embodied in the tender notice, made it clear that the deposit of 50 % of the tender value by the successful tenderer was mandatory inasmuch as failu re thereof had serious consequences to the extent of rendering the successful te nderer ineligible to participate in any tender process for as long as a period o f 5 years. 8. In the present case, the offer of the respondent No. 5 and the tender do cuments suffered from multiple defects as indicated above. This apart, he (respo ndent No.5) failed to deposit, within 24 hours, of receiving the settlement, the required amount of 50% of tender value. In such circumstances, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Sivasagar Zilla Parishad, and Presiden t, Sivasagar Zilla Parishad, respectively, ought to have cancelled the settlemen t, which had been made in favour of the petitioner and ought to have proceeded t o settle the market in accordance with law. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes cl ear that the settlement made, in favour of the respondent No. 5, by the order, d ated 08-07-2009, is wholly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be allowed to stand good on record. 10. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, the impugned settlement, made in favour of the respondent No. 5, is h ereby set aside and quashed. 11. Considering, however, the fact that the period of lease was to end on 30 -06-2010, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Sivasagar Zi lla Parishad, and President, Sivasagar Zilla Parishad, respectively, are hereby directed to examine the present petitioner’s claim for settlement of the market , in question, and if he is found to be eligible, necessary order granting settl ement to him, for the period ending on 30-06-2010, shall follow on such terms an d conditions as may be tenable in law. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.