WP(C) 2792/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition er has prayed for quashing the settlement order dated 30.4.10 issued by the Chai rman, Sarupathar Town Committee (respondent No.5) settling the Sarupathar Daily and Weekly Market in favour of respondent No.8 for the period of 1.5.2010 to 31. 3.2011. 2. Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BC Saikia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents , Mr. P Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. N Upadhyay, learned counse l for respondent No.6 and Mr. H Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.8. 3. Petitioner’s case in brief is that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tende r (’NIT’ for short) dated 16.2.10 issued by the respondent No.5 for the settleme nt of i) Sarupathar Daily & Weekly Market, ii) Sarupathar Parking Place, iii) Sa rupathar Public Bus Stand and iv) Padumoni Daily Market under Sarupathar Town Co mmittee for the year 2010-2011, the petitioner alongwith other 16 tenderers subm itted tender for the Sarupathar Daily and Weekly Market. Petitioner’s bid value was Rs.7,80,116/-. Among the bidders, petitioner’s bid value was found to be the highest and his name appeared at Sl. No.1 in the list of the bidders and the pe titioner was found eligible on all counts. Thereafter, two tenderers withdrew th eir tenders leaving the following 15 tenderers:- Sl. No. Name of the tenderer Bid value Bid position 1 Sri Indrajit Knowar 7,80,116.00 1st 2 Sri Sanjay Phukan 7,77,777.00 2nd 3 Sri Dimbeswar Knowar 7,52,412.00 3rd 4 Sri Ogeswar Borgohain 7,37,777.00 4th 5 Sri Jitu Saikia 7,31,717.00 5th 6 Sri Boloram Gogoi 7,22,000.00 6th 7 Sri Hareswar Saikia 6,77,371.00 7th 8 Sri Jibon Lahkar 6,71,777.00 8th 9 Sri Indreswar Boro 6,57,777.00 9th 10 Sri Hemakanta Gogoi 6,52,000.00 10th 11 Sri Purnakanta Gogoi 6,50,363.00 11th 12 Sri Dwijendra Kishore Medhi 6,45,251.00 12th 13 Sri Dipak Sarma 6,36,636.00 13th 14 Sri Dharmeswar Gogoi 4,77,777.00 14th 15 Sri Swapan Gogoi 4,61,999.00 15th But, to the utter surprise of all the bidders/tenderers, the said market was set tled with the respondent No.8 whose bid value was Rs.6,57,777/- only. 4. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner’s bid was the highest valid bid, the authorities acted arbitrari ly and in unfair manner in settling the market in favour of respondent No.8 whos e bid value was admittedly lower than the petitioner. 5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 contending that on the representation received from the dealers of the mar ket to the effect that as because the bid value was too high in the last year so the lessee of the previous year tried to realize exorbitant tolls from the poor dealers which has caused much harassment to the dealers of the market and hence , considering all aspect of the matter, the Town Committee vide resolution dated 19.4.10 decided to settle the market with respondent No.8 at his bid value of R s.6,57,777/-. 6. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State respond ent as well as respondent No.8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and 6 has produced the original record of the case before this C ourt at the time of hearing. 7. I have perused the record of the case which would reveal that at the req uest of the Sarupathar Town Committee to the Director of Municipal Administratio n for settlement of the Sarupathar Daily and Weekly Market, the Director of Muni cipal Administration directed respondent No.5 to settle the aforesaid market as well as the bus stand/parking place etc. making it clear therein that the settle ment order should be made to the highest bidder if he is found otherwise eligibl e. But instead of awarding the settlement to the highest bidder in the present c ase in hand, the market was settled with respondent No.8 whose bid value is lowe r than the petitioner. 8. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments made by respondent N os.5 and 6 in the counter, Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the reasons gi ven by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the counter that the settlement was made in fav our of respondent No.8 in consideration of the representation received from the dealers of the market to the effect that as in the last year bid value was too high, the lessee tried to realize exorbitant tolls from the dealers which has ca used much harassment to them and hence, considering the prayer so made by the de alers of the market, the town committee decided to settle the market with respon dent No.8 at his bid value of Rs.6,57,777/- should not be accepted by the court, inasmuch as, besides the petitioner and the respondent No.8 there were thirteen other tenderers who had submitted tenders, bid value of six of whom were lower than respondent No.8 and eight were higher including the petitioner. Yet the aut horities by picking and choosing the rate offered by respondent No.8 settled the market in his favour. 9. In support of his submission, Mr. Mahanta has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) GLT (SC) 1 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the tender process should be fair and transparent and where the authorities intend to settle the tender for a price within the valid range, the authorities should state the viability range within which the tenders shall be considered by the a uthorities. But in the instant case, the authorities did not specify the range w ithin which the rates would be considered reasonable. On the contrary, the recor d would reveal that the Director of Municipal Administration, respondent No.7 di rected the respondent No.5 to settle the market with the highest bidder if he is found otherwise eligible. 10. It has not been disputed by the respondent authorities that the bid valu e of the petitioner was Rs.7,80,116/- whereas bid value of respondent No.8 was R s.6,57,777/-. Since the bid value of the petitioner was higher than that of resp ondent No.8 the authority could not have settled the market in favour of respond ent No.8 except for good and valid reasons. The reasons shown by the respondent Town Committee for settling the market with respondent No.8, if accepted by this Court then the authority will start accepting the tenders of parties submitting tenders at lower rate than the tenders of parties submitting the highest rate o n the ground that rate quoted by the highest tenderer is not reasonable. It is, however, true that the authorities with a view to help the poor dealers of the m arket from realizing the exorbitant tolls by the lessee settled the market at a lower rate instead of settling the same at the highest rate, but while doing so they will have to specify in the notice inviting tender that market shall be se ttled at the reasonable rate and will have to indicate the range of reasonable r ates within which the parties may submit their bids and settle the market in fav our of the highest bidder within the range of reasonable rate. Such approach by the authorities would be fair and transparent and beyond any doubt. Moreover, un less, the range of reasonable rate is specified in the tender notice the authori ties may arbitrarily pick and choose a rate to be reasonable depending upon the person to whom they intend to settle the market and settle it in his favour. In the instant case, on perusal of the statements made on oath in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as the relevant record, no where it is found that the tender notice stipulated the condition that the ma rket will be settled in favour of a party quoted reasonable rate nor did the ten der notice appeared to have specified the range of reasonable rates. Further, al though fifteen tenderers submitted fifteen different rates, no reason whatsoever has been given in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 a s to why the rate quoted by the respondent No.8 at Rs.6,57,777/- was found to be reasonable rate, more so, as alleged the respondent No.8 being Antyodaya Anna c ard holder (Annexure-8) and as such he being a person leaving below the poverty line, his capability to run and manage the market as well as financial capacity ought to have been considered by the authorities. 11. The settlement of the market in favour of respondent No.8 by the impugne d order dated 30.4.10 was therefore arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and violativ e of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The settlement is, therefore, liab le to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of settlement passed in favour of respon dent No.8 is quashed and the Sarupathar Town Committee is directed to pass fres h order of settlement of the market for the remaining part of the year taking in to account the tenders submitted by the tenderers pursuant to NIT dated 16.2.10. The fresh order shall be passed within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the d ate of receipt of the certified copy of this order from the petitioner keeping i n mind the observation made in this order. 13. In the meanwhile, the Sarupathar Daily & Weekly market shall be run by t he Town Committee. 14. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.