WP(C) 5632/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who was one of the bidders pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tende r (NIT) dated 1st May, 2010 issued by the President of Kapili Anchalik Panchayat , by the present petition has challenged the order of settlement dated 12th Augu st, 2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Morigaon Zilla Parishad settli ng Jaluguti Weekly Market in favour oft the respondent No.7 only on the ground t hat the respondent No.7 alongwith the tender paper did not file the copy of the Jamabandi in respect of the land, valuation of which has been certified by the C ircle Officer vide certificate dated 23rd February, 2009, which was enclosed wit h the tender paper submitted. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.7 w as not in possession of the land and though the said fact was made known to the settling authority, after opening of the bids offered by the different bidders, the same was not considered and the settlement was made in favour of the respond ent No.7, whose tender paper was in fact defective. I have heard Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahman, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the r espondent No.7 did not file the copy of the Jamabandi of the land, which was off ered as security for settlement of the market, over which in fact the respondent No.7 has no possession, the settling authority ought to have rejected the tende r paper submitted by the respondent No.7. The learned counsel submitted that th e order of settlement dated 12th August, 2010 issued by the Chief Executive Offi cer of Morigaon Zilla Parishad, therefore, needs to be interfered with, since th e tender paper submitted by the respondent No.7 was defective. The learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 placing relian ce on the statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4 has, however, submitted that the respondent No.7 alongwith the tender paper submitted by him also furnished the certificate dated 23rd February, 2009 issue d by the Circle Officer certifying that the land offered as security belongs to the petitioner and also the valuation of the said land, which was accepted by th e authority and the respondent No.7’s tender paper having found to be in order a nd also keeping in view the fact that the tender papers submitted by the 6 (six) bidders including the petitioner were defective and the 7th and 8th bidders hav ing withdrawn their bids, the settling authority settled the market in favour of the respondent No.7, who was the 9th highest bidder. Supporting the argument advanced by the learned State Counsel, the learned couns el for the respondent No.7 has also submitted that the petitioner’s tender paper was found to be defective and as such, his tender paper was rejected and the re spondent No.7’s tender papers being found to be in order and he being the only t enderer left out in the fray, the settlement order was issued in his favour. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and als o perused the pleadings including the annexures appended thereto. I have also p erused the relevant records, as produced by the learned State counsel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s tender paper was found to be defectiv e, as the surety was a defaulter. The petitioner’s bid though was higher than t he bid of the respondent No.7 was, therefore, rejected. It also appears that th e bid of the other 5 (five) bidders, whose bids were more than the bid of the re spondent No.7 were also rejected, because their tender papers were found to be d efective. The records further reveal that the 7th and 8th highest bidders, who also submitted higher bids than the respondent No.7, however, have subsequently withdrawn from the fray leaving the respondent No.7 in the fray and accordingly the order of settlement was passed in his favour. The grounds on which the settlement order is challenged, as noticed above, canno t be accepted as the respondent No.7 has submitted the certificate issued by the Circle Officer certifying that the land offered as security belongs to him. Th e Circle Officer has also certified the value of the land. Merely because the r espondent No.7’s name was not recorded in the revenue record, the same cannot be the ground for rejection of tender of the respondent No.7 as defective, in view of the aforesaid certificate of the Circle Officer, submitted alongwith the ten der papers. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. Since the period of settlement is going to be over on 30th Jun e, 2011 and there is no provision of extension of the period of lease under the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the panchayat authority is directed to initiate a fresh process of settlement of the market for the period with eff ect from 1st July, 2011 in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.