WP(C) 3045/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. YS Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Dutta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Ms. RS Deuri, learned couns el for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.4.2010, whereby the settlem ent of Bogibeel Karengbali Ferry Service has been granted in favour of responden t No.5 pursuant to the NIT dated 24.12.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 alo ngwith others had made their offers for settlement of the said ferry and it is c ontended that notwithstanding the defects in the tender filed by the respondent No.5, the settling authority decided to grant the settlement in favour of the sa id respondent. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the docum ents specified under Clause 7(a), 7(b) and 9 of the terms and conditions of the NIT were not furnished by the respondent No.5 and accordingly, he could not have been considered for the settlement. Mr. Das, learned counsel representing the settlement holder (respondent No.5) fairly submits that some of the documents could not be enclosed by him alo ngwith the tender because of paucity of time. However, he submits that since all the required documents were subsequently furnished and the respondent No.5 was the highest bidder, he was rightly given the ferry settlement. If any tenderer is permitted subsequently to cure the defects in his ten der the sanctity of the tender process would be affected and discrimination woul d be caused to those tenderers, who had filed tenders with all requisite documen ts. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned settlement ord er dated 19.4.2010 in favour of respondent No.5 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly interfered with and quashed. The department is directed to take expeditious steps for issuing a fresh tender notice for settlement of the ferry. However, considering the submission made by Mr. Das that the entire kist amount was deposited by the respondent No.5 , until fresh settlement process is complete, he may be permitted to operate the ferry to ensure that no disruption is caused to the ferry users. This writ petition stands allowed accordingly.