WA 319/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. DAS (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge quashin g the award of contract in favour of the appellant by the Zila Parishad. There w as an earlier round of litigation against the award of the same contract by the order dated 4.7.2011. This Court by the order dated 9.8.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 3578 of 2011 found that there was no valid reason for award of contract to the a ppellant ignoring higher bids. The reason given for ignoring the higher bids tha t the higher bidder would collect more toll was found to be untenable in view of the terms and conditions applicable. The finding recorded in the said order is reproduced below for ready reference : 8. & &. The contention of the learned State counsel that the decision wa s taken by the Zilla Parishad to settle the market in favour of the respondent N o.6 at Rs.1,43,950/- as in the event of making such settlement there is likeliho od of collection of the tolls at the rate higher than the rate fixed, also canno t be accepted since the rate of tolls to be collected from the vendors is fixed by the Panchayat authority and the Panchayat authority is duty bound to ensure t hat the tolls are collected by the settlement holder at the rate fixed by it. It is also the responsibility of the Panchayat authority to ensure that the terms and conditions of the settlement are strictly followed by the settlement holder. In the absence of any viability range fixed and notified in the NIT, the author ity cannot refuse to consider the bids of the tenderers on the ground that the s ame is excessive in comparison to the minimum rate fixed. If such a course of ac tion is allowed to be adopted, there would be scope for arbitrariness in action as the authority would be given the licence to pick and choose a bidder for sett lement citing the ground that his bid is viable. The contention of the learned c ounsel for the respondent No.6 that the authority must have taken into considera tion the last year settlement holder’s conduct and decide to settle the market i n favour of the respondent No.6, his bid being reasonable, cannot also be accept ed for the aforesaid reasons. Moreover, the records do not reveal such considera tion by the Zilla Parishad. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of settlement is sued by the Zilla Parishad in favourr of the respondent No.6 is set aside. The m atter is remitted to the Zilla Parishad for passing necessary order relating to the settlement, keeping in view the findings as well as the observations made he rein above in this judgment, which shall be done within 2(two) weeks from the da te of production of the certified copy of this order to be submitted by the peti tioner before the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. For this period of 2(two) weeks the respondent No.6, however, shall be allowed to continue. In spite of the above, the Zilla Parishad again adopted the same reasoning, whic h was disapproved by this Court and awarded the contract to the appellant. Relev ant part of the proceedings awarding contract is as under : The meeting feels is on the opinion that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th hi ghest tenders are more than 30% to 70% increase of the previous settled amount a nd are more for the public interest. If the market is settled in this highest va lue then there is apprehension of public dissatisfaction and anomalies. The meet ing decided not to settle the market on those highest bidders for the reason tha t if the market is settled in the name of those highest bidders there may be pos sibility of defaulting in payments kist money. Learned Single Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions and perusi ng the record found that there were other bids higher than the bid of the appell ant and the reason given for accepting the bid of the appellant had already been found untenable by this Court. It was observed : Admittedly, the bid of the respondent No.6 stands at serial No.7th. In other w ords, there are six bids higher than the said respondent. As per the direction of this Court, the learned Government Advocate has produced the instructions received by him from the Zilla Parishad. From the written inst ruction dated 07.09.2011, it appears that the Zilla Parishad has again taken a d ecision to settle the market with the respondent No.6. One of the grounds for se ttling the market with respondent No.6, Panku Mohan Chetry is that his bid is ve ry close the previous settlement value of Rs.1 lakh 19 thousand. As per the Chie f Executive Officer, normally the market is settled in and around 10% increase o f the previous settlement value. If that be so, the offer of Panku Mohan Chetri is still higher than the 10% of the previous value. At the same time, I do not u nderstand any logic behind this. The said condition was not put in the NIT. Henc e, the ground of settling the market with Panku Mohan Chetry is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the settlement of the market with respondent No.6, Panku Moh an Chetry was rightly set aside by this Court and I re-affirm the decision taken by this Court in the earlier order. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award of contract in his favo ur should not have been interfered with. No contempt proceedings were initiated against the Zilla Parishad and thus it could not be held that Zilla Parishad had not complied with the order of this Court. We are unable to accept the submission. It is undisputed that order of this Court dated 9.8.2011 has attained finality a nd the earlier decision awarding contract to the appellant was found to be illeg al. Once it is so, it was not open to the Zilla Parishad to reiterate the same d ecision without any change in circumstances. The award of contract in favour of the appellant was thus clearly illegal and in violation of this Court’s order da ted 9.8.2011. This being the undisputed position, learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the same. No ground is, thus, made out to interfere with the view taken b y the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.