WP(C) 3635/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Nazari, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Gogo i, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, lea rned Addl. Sr. G.A. In spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf o f the respondent No. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-C order dated 23.07.08 b y which the market, namely Bongalmora (weekly) market has been settled with the respondent No. 5 at his bid value of Rs. 9,03,951/- for 11 months. It is the gri evance of the petitioner that he being the highest bidder having offered a bid v alue of Rs. 11,50,000/-, he ought to have been settled with the market instead o f settling the same with the respondent No. 5. Be it stated here that as per the comparative statement the bid offered by the respondent No. 5 was at Rs. 10,00 ,101/-. It is not discernible as on what count such bid value offered by the res pondent No. 5 has been reduced to Rs. 9,03,951/- as indicated in the impugned or der dated 23.07.08. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. G.A submits that such reduction might be on account of the fact that the settlement period is for 11 months instead of one year. Mr. Nazari, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, the authorit y is bound to settle the market to the highest bidder. As per Rule 47 (10), acce ptance of tender other than the highest bid requires the prior and formal approv al of the Govt. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that such prior an d formal approval was obtained from the Govt. before settling the market with t he respondent No. 5 at a bid value which is admittedly lower than the highest bi d offered by the petitioner. Another ground urged by Mr. Nazari, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement was made in favour of the respondent No. 5 wit h the hidden criterion of considering the case of the tenderers whose bid value was less than 20% of the market value. He submits that such condition having not been spelt out in the NIT, the authority could not have ignored the tenders qu oting rate beyond 20% of the market value. According to him such criterion adop ted by the tender committee having not been made public and/or having not been s pelt out in the NIT, same was illegal and tends to lead to the interference of c olourable exercise of power. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. G.A., on the other hand su bmits that there is nothing wrong in adopting the criterion considering the reve nue of the Panchayat. However, she fairly submits that before settling the marke t with the respondent No. 5, the requirement of Rule 47 (10) of the Rules was no t complied with. As per Rule 47 (10) of the aforesaid Rules, in the normal circum stances settlement is to be made with the highest bidder. The Rule mandates that in case of settlement being made with the tenderer other than the highest bid der prior and formal approval of the Govt. is to be obtained. Such a condition h as been imposed so that in the matter of settlement there is no arbitrary exerci se of power. In case of seeking prior and formal approval of the Govt., the auth ority is bound to give reasons for settling the market with the tenderer other t han the highest bidder. In the instant case, such a condition precedent having b een violated, the impugned order cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The authori ty considered only those tenderers whose bid value was less than 20% of the mar ket value and the same was not made known in the NIT or otherwise. In this conne ction, Mr. Nazari, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has referred to the de cision reported in 1997 (II) GLT (S.C.) 1 (Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo M erchantiles). The contention in this regard finds support from the said decision . For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of settlement is l iable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly do. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.07.07 (Annexure-C) is set aside and quas hed. The authority may now do the needful in the matter.