WP(C) 4690/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N K Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M r. H Rahman, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6. Mr. J Sarma, l earned Govt. Advocate appears for the respondent No.1 and 2. The settlement hold er (respondent No.7) is not before the Court although personal service was affec ted on him. 2. The petitioner who responded to the tender notice dated 30.4.2010 of the Sapekhati Anchalik Panchayat for settlement of the Borhat Weekly Market, challe nges the settlement order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure-B) whereby the market was se ttled with respondent No.7 Udayan Baruah at his bid value of Rs.3,52,000.00. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was the 4th highest bidder with a bid value of Rs.3,51,000.00 and since the tenders of the h ighest 3 bidders were defective, the settlement ought to have been granted to th e petitioner. 4. Mr. N K Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the compara tive statement prepared by the Standing Committee of the Sivasagar Zila Parishad to show that in the tender submitted by respondent No.7, the requisite Income T ax and Sales Tax certificate of the Guarantor of the tenderer were not enclosed and accordingly the tender of respondent No.7 should be considered as defective tender. From the comparative statement it is also pointed out that the bids of H oren Changmai and Bijay Chanda, the two highest bidders were held to be defectiv e by the Standing Committee. 5. It is also contended that although 50% of the bid value was required to be deposited within 24 hours by the successful tenderer, the respondent No.7 mad e the deposit belatedly on 16.7.2010 and in such case settlement is required to be offered to the next highest bidder, who is in this case is the writ petitione r. 6. Appearing for the Settling Authorities, Mr. H Rahman, learned counsel su bmits that the Sales Tax and the Income Tax clearance certificate of his guarant or was not furnished by the respondent No.7. It is also confirmed by Mr. Rahman that the 50% of bid value was deposited beyond 24 hours, by the successful tende rer. 7. From the above, the contention made by the petitioner is found to be est ablished that the tender of respondent No.7 was defective and he had deposited t he required amount only on 16.7.2010 instead of on 15.7.2010. The respondent No. 7 himself is not present to rebut the Court’s conclusion. 8. In view of above, the impugned settlement order of the Sivasagar Zila Pa rishad Authorities in respect of Borhat Weekly Market passed on 14.7.2010 is set aside and quashed. The settling authorities are accordingly directed to conside r settlement from amongst the highest valid bidders remaining in the fray. Neces sary order in this regard may be passed on or before 5.1.2011. 9. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.