WP(C) 4746/2007 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R. Chakrab orty, learned State counsel. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Sr. co unsel assisted by Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. The petitioner is admittedly the highest bidder in respect of the tender process initiated and completed by the respondents for the particular market (G oroimari Baniarapara Bazar) for the year 2007-2008. The N.I.T. was issued on 1 7.4.2007. The petitioner offered Rs.2,21,551.00 and the Respondent No.5 offered Rs.1,85,000.00. Be it stated here that the Government rate fixed for the marke t is Rs.1,69,767.00. The market was settled with the 5th bidder, who incidentally is the lowe st bidder at his quoted rate of Rs.1,51,000.00. This rate is even lower than th e rate fixed by the Government. Upon a challenge to the same by the petitioner, the highest bidder, by filing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.3969/2007, thi s Court by its order dated 9.8.2007 remanded the matter back to the Government f or a fresh decision in accordance with law. Be it stated here that the settlemen t made in favour of the lowest bidder was a provisional one. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Government of Assam in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department passed the order dated 29.8.20 07 directing the Zila Parishad (the Respondent No.3) to complete the fresh settl ement exercise as per the guidelines indicated in the order. In the order, it wa s intimated that as per the prevalent practice, the offer should go to the highe st bidder. However, liberty was granted to the Zila Parishad to make settlement with other tenderers, if it was found that the rate offered by the highest bidde r was unreasonably high and impracticable. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Government, the Respondent No.3 settled the market with the second highest bidder by order dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approache d this Court. The Respondent No.5 has resisted the case of the petitioner by filing th e affidavit-in-opposition. On the other hand, the official respondents have pro duced the records. According to the respondents, the rate quoted by the petiti oner being on the higher side, there is every possibility of collecting the tol ls by the petitioner at the higher rate. According to the respondents, consider ing the practical aspect of the matter, the Zila Parishad took the decision to s ettle the market with the Respondent No.5, the second highest bidder at his bid of Rs.1,85,000.00. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record. The Government rate of the market is Rs.1,67, 767.00. If the plea of the Zila Parishad is to be accepted, then in that case, the market ought to have been settled with the 4th or the 3rd highest bidder, wh ose rates are Rs.1,70,000.00 and Rs.1,71,331.00 respectively. The plea of the re spondents that in case of settling the market with the petitioner at Rs.2,21,55 1.00, he would collect tolls at higher rates and there would be unnecessary hara ssment to the public, is not at all tenable. For such matters, the Zila Parisha d has to take regulatory measures. The apprehension expressed by the responden ts may also be applicable in case of the Respondent No.5, whose bid value is als o about Rs.25,000.00 higher than the Government rate. Apart from the above, as per the provisions of Rule 47 (10) of the Ass am Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, the tender of highest bidder shall be acce pted. Acceptance of tender other than the highest bid shall require prior and f ormal approval of the Government. In the instant case, although the market has not been settled with the highest bidder, but the Zila Parishad did not obtain a ny prior and formal approval of the Government to do so. On this score alone, th e settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside and quashed. The respondents cannot act on presumption and apprehension that in case of settl ing the market with the highest bidder, there might be collection of tolls at a higher rate and that the public would face harassment. It cannot be said that the rate offered by the petitioner is abnormally high and not practical. Mr. Ro shid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount in one instalment. As regards the apprehension expre ssed by the respondents, the regulatory measures are there to control such situa tion. The respondents merely on apprehension and presumption cannot act in a par ticular manner. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugne d order dated 6.9.2007 is set aside and quashed. The matter shall now go back t o the Zila Parishad for a fresh decision consistently with the observations made above. The decision now to be taken in the light of this order shall be so take n by the Zila Parishad without any further delay and at any rate, not later tha n 15.02.2008. Till then, the Zila Parishad may manage the affairs of the market , as may be expedient so that there is no loss of revenue. Writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.