WA 351/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA (Amitava Roy, J) The judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 rendered in WP(C) No. 4063/2011 sustaining the respondent No.7/ writ petitioner’s challenge to the settlement of Na-khula Weekly Market (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the market’) by the Morigaon Zilla Parishad (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Zilla Pa rishad’) is in assailment in the present appeal. We have heard Mr FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant (responden t No.7 in the writ proceeding) and Mr R Adhikary, learned State counsel for the official respondents. We have also heard Mr N Borah, learned counsel for the res pondent No.7 herein (writ petitioner) who has entered appearance through a cavea t. The caveat stands discharged. The facts in short necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the aforementioned market was offered for settlement by the Mayang Anchalik Panchayat (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Anchalik Panchayat’) loca ted with the territorial limits of the Zilla Parishad by issuing a Notice Inviti ng Tender (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the NIT’) dated 30.4.2011. The period of settlement as mentioned therein is from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012. Sixtee n tenderers in response to the NIT offered their bids. These included the partie s before us. Whereas the appellant offered Rs. 53,365/- per month as his bid, th e respondent No.7 herein (writ petitioner) quoted Rs. 1,31,999/- per month there for. In the table prepared by the settling authority apropos the bids offered, t he respondent No.7/ writ petitioner was at serial No.2 and the appellant herein at serial No. 13. The tenders of the other tenderers having been found to be def ective being construed to be in deviation of the tender norms, the appellant and the writ petitioner remained in the fray. In terms of Clause-8 of the NIT, the respondent No.7/ writ petitioner had offered immovable property measuring 1.5 Bi gha valued approximately at Rs. 6,00,000/-. The appellant’s immovable property, whereof no particulars had been furnished, was shown to be worth Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the comparative statement that was prepared the value of the immovable prope rty offered by the respondent No.7/ writ petitioner was indicated to be Rs. 25,0 00/- per Bigha by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Morigaon. Acting on this inpu t, the settling authority concluded that his tender was defective being not in c ompliance with the requirement of Clause-8. According to the settling authority, the value of Rs. 25,000/- per Bigha did not meet the requirement of the same be ing 25% of the bid offered by the respondent No.7/ writ petitioner. As the value of the property offered by the appellant was in consonance with such requiremen t, he being the only valid tenderer, the settlement was offered to him. As afore stated, this settlement has been set at naught in the writ proceeding. Mr Ahmed has urged that a plain reading of Clause-8 of the NIT would rev eal that the value of the immovable property offered should be such so that it w ould at least be 25% of the bid offered by a tenderer computed on annual basis. As apparently the immovable property offered by the respondent No.7/ writ petiti oner did not meet this requirement, interference with his (appellant) settlement is patently unsustainable and ought to be interfered with. While Mr Adhikary has abstained from making any comment on the controver sy between the parties, Mr Bora has urged that it being evident that 25% of the value of the immovable property offered as the security ought to be construed vi s-à-vis monthly bid quoted by a tenderer, on a simple arithmetic the offer made by the respondent No.7/ writ petitioner was in harmony with the requirement of C lause-8 and, thus, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and order has been made out. We have traversed the pleadings available and have carefully examined th e contentions raised before us. Clause-8 of the NIT which occupies the center st age of the debate deserves to be quoted:- 8. If the value of the immovable property of the tenderer is not proportionate to 25% of the bid value then a wealthy person can be an undertaker/ guarantor an d the value of such property should be proportionate to 25% of hat/ bazaar/ parg hat. The non-encumbrance certificate and certificate relating to value of the af oresaid property should be obtained from the competent authority and the same is to be submitted at the time of execution of mortgage. The salient features of this clause can be paraphrased as hereunder: i) The tenderer has to offer immovable property as security. ii) The value of such property should be equal to 25% of the bid amount. iii) If the valuation is less than 25%, immovable property of some other pers on can be offered as security, however, satisfying the above requirement. iv) Necessary valuation certificate from the competent authority should be s ubmitted at the time of execution of the agreement. Having regard to the stage of the process where the valuation certificate from t he competent authority is essential, the same need not detain us. Such a require ment is to be complied with at the time of execution of the agreement which logi cally would finalization of the settlement. As the parties are engaged in a lega l tussle with regard to the validity of the settlement made that stage has not r eached. A perusal of the comparative statement discloses that the minimum monthly bid wa s fixed at Rs. 47,251/- and the suitability of the tenderers vis-à-vis their off ers subject to the compliance of the other terms and conditions of the NIT was a djudged on the said yardstick. The said document indicates that the bids offered were also monthly in nature. Judged from that point of view, the offer of the a ppellant herein is approximately 1/3rd of that of the respondent No.7/ writ peti tioner on monthly basis. Clause-8 of the NIT per se does not predicate that 25% of the value of the immovable property offered as security has to be computed in the context of the figure to be worked out for the period of settlement on the basis of the monthly bid of the tenderers. The plea raised on behalf of the app ellant, having regard to the unequivocal language of Clause8 of the NIT, therefo re, does not commend acceptance. All concerned, as the scheme of the NIT suggests, had proceeded on the c omprehension that that the bids would be offered on monthly basis and 25% of the value of the immovable property vis-à-vis the same would also be reckoned on th e same measure. Judged in that context, it is a simple arithmetic that even if t he valuation of the immovable property offered by the respondent No.7/ writ peti tioner as security is taken to be Rs. 25,000/- per Bigha, the same would sum up to Rs. 37,150/- (the land offered being 1.5 Bigha). As Rs. 37,150/- is more than 25% of his bid of Rs. 1,31,999/-, we see no cogent reason to find fault with th e ultimate conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment and order. The learned Single Judge, in our estimate, has examined all the relevant aspects of the debate and the findings are recorded on the basis of the materia ls available. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.