WP(C) 4558/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY WITH W P (C) NO.4605/2010 Heard Mr. P K R Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W P (C) No.4558/2010. Also heard Mr. K Lahkar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in W P (C) No.4605/2010. Mr. D C Borah, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.7 Jakir Hussain who has been given settlement of Laharigh at Bi-weekly Market by the Chief Executive Officer of the Morigaon Zila Parishad by the impugned order dated 4.8.2010. 2. The petitioners contend that in pursuant to the tender notice issued on 6.5.2010 for settlement of the above market, 9 (nine) offers were received and t he offer of the person who was given settlement at Rs.59,821/- was the seventh h ighest amongst the valid offers. 3. It appears from the case records that the tenderers whose offers were th e 1st, 4th and 5th highest, withdrew from the fray and in the process the offer of the 3 petitioners i.e. at Rs.1,23,793/- of Md. Rafiqul Islam; at Rs.95,000/- of Md. Nazimuddin and at Rs.63,000/- of Md. Abu Hanif respectively were higher offers than that of respondent No.7. 4. But it is contended by the petitioners that despite the higher offers an d in contravention of the provision of Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Finan cial) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Financial Rules’), the settli ng Authority has given settlement to the respondent No.7 by ignoring the highest offer and without seeking prior Government approval for giving the settlement t o a lower offer. 5. The settlement records produced by Mr. G Soren, learned Govt. Advocate s hows that no prior approval of the Government was obtained to give the settlemen t to respondent No.7. 6. Mr. D C Borah, learned counsel appearing for the settlement holder (resp ondent No.7) does not dispute that all the offers made by the writ petitioners w ere higher than the offer of the respondent No.7 but he contends that the said o ffer was found to be exorbitant and therefore the settlement was given to the re spondent No.7. 7. Considering the fact that viability range were not mentioned in the tend er notice, the decision to reject the higher offers given by the petitioners is clearly unsustainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the c ase of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Merchantiles pvt. Ltd. reported in 19 97 (II) GLT (SC) 1, where the Court has intervened with rejection of higher bids by the Settling Authority. 8. Accordingly having regard to the infringement of the provisions of Rule 47 (10) of the Financial Rules and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Dut ta Associates (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that both the writ petitio ns deserved to be allowed. Accordingly the impugned settlement of the Laharighat Bi-weekly Market by the Chief Executive Officer of the Morigaon Zila Parishad i n favour of respondent No.7 is hereby set aside. The Zila Parishad Authorities m ay now make the settlement on the basis of the bids received in terms of the pro visions of the Financial Rules. 9. A fresh decision on settlement may be taken on or before 6.9.2010. But c onsidering the fact that the respondent No.7 has already deposited the first kis t money, he may continue to operate the market until 6.9.2010 as an interim arra ngement. But he shall not be permitted to operate the market beyond 6.9.2010. 10. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.