WP(C) 2984/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sivasagar Munic ipal Board and its Chairman are represented by Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counse l. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel appears for the settlement holder (r espondent No.4). The State is represented by Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. 2. Offering bid of Rs. 10,60,000/- the petitioner applied for settlement o f the new market for which tender notice was issued on 12.1.10 by the Sivasaga r Municipal Board. He has challenged the order dated 14.5.10 (Annexure-E) whereb y the market has been settled with the respondent No.4 at his bid of Rs. 7,50,59 9/-. 3. Mr. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition er’s bid was the highest valid bid and it being a competitive tender process, th e settling authority could not have given settlement at the 4th highest bid of t he private respondent. 4. Defending the settlement, it is contended by Mr. H. Buragohain that the bid of the writ petitioner although higher was considered to be exorbitant and speculative and accordingly the Municipal Board did not consider the petitioner for settlement. By referring to the fact that new market was settled in the p ast at a yearly value ranging from Rs. 5.00 lacs to 6.00 lacs and considering th e limited capacity of the vegetable vendors who conduct business in the market , the Municipal Board considered the offer of the respondent No.4 at Rs. 7,50,59 9/- to be a more reasonable and viable offer and accordingly settlement was gran ted to the said respondent. 5. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel contends that the Municipal Boar d was justified in taking into account the price at which the market was settle d in the last few years since settlement at an exorbitant rate would have result ed in charging higher than the prescribed toll by the lessee from the vegetable vendors in the market. 6. Although the settlement granted at the lower offer of the private respon dent is sought to be justified by the Municipal Board by referring to the viable range, unfortunately in the tender notice, no mention was made that the viabi lity range would be considered as a factor for granting settlement. If this info rmation would have been made available to the prospective tenderers, everyone co uld have made their offer, keeping in mind the requirement of the settling autho rity. But this was not done and the highest offer given by the petitioner was co nsidered to be exorbitant and by applying the criteria of viability range the s ettlement has been granted to the respondent No.4 at his offer of Rs. 7,50,599/- . 7. During the last 5 years from the year 2005-2010 the new market was set tled through competitive bidding and the value at which the market was settled r anged between Rs. 5,09,040/- to Rs. 6,05,551/-. The settling authority claims th at the offer of the respondent No.4 at Rs. 7,50,599/- is viable, although the sa id offer is nearly Rs. 1,45,000/- above the value at which the market was settle d in the previous year. 8. When the viability range is considered as a relevant factor for granting settlement, there is always a possibility of biased decision as the decision ma king process can be suitably moulded to accommodate the offer of a favoured bidd er. To prevent unfairness in the settlement process, it was necessary for the Mu nicipal Board to have notified that the viability range of the bid would also be taken into account by the settling authority to obviate an allegation of bias i n the decision making process. But this criterion was not specified in the Tend er notice. 9. In the above circumstances, the justification given for preferring the r espondent No.4 by ignoring the higher offer of the petitioner is not found to be justified and accordingly the impugned settlement order dated 14.5.10 is set as ide and quashed. Consequently, the Sivasagar Municipal Board is directed to ini tiate a fresh process for settlement of the new market by issuing a fresh tend er notice. 10. Since the current settlement is valid until 31.3.11, the process of sel ection of a new lessee must be completed by 7.3.11. Until a fresh settlement is made or till 7.3.11, which ever is earlier, the respondent No.4 is permitted to collect tolls from the new market on the basis of order dated 14.5.10. Howev er, he shall have no right to collect tolls after 7th March, 2011. 11. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction.