WP(C) 3988/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA The petitioner herein calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 22.06.2010 issued by the Zilla Parishad, Nagaon whereby and whereun der Kharikhana Weekly Bazar has been settled with the lowest bidder Md. Abdul Ma zid Tapadar, respondent no. 7 for the year 2010-2011. 2. Considering the grievance raised in this petition and also as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being di sposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The facts of the case in brief is narrated hereunder; The Kharikhana weekly market falls under Dholpukhuri Anchalik Panchayat Nagaon whereby the aforesaid Anchalik Panchayat issued a notice inviting tender (for short ’NIT’) for the period of 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 for settlement of K harikhana weekly market alongwith other hats. The date for submission of tender paper was fixed on 16.06.2010. In the said tender there were certain conditions. The conditions relevant for the instant case read as follows: 1. Tenderers should submit tenders in a form supplied by Dholpukhuri Anchalik Pa nchayat only; 2. The markets having sale value more than Rs.1 Lakh will be settled by Zilla Pa rishad; 3. The highest bidder will be preferred. 4. The lowest bid value of Kharikhana weekly market has been fixed at Rs.1,53,89 0/-. 3. All together 7 (seven) numbers of tenderers participated in the tender p rocess in respect of Kharikhana weekly market. The comparative table of the 7 te nderers are quoted hereunder- Sl. No. Name Amounts quoted (in Rs.) 1. Md. Farizul Islam 2,81,000.00 2. Md. Farzan Ali 1,91,000.00 3. Md. Moksed Ali Barbhuiya 3,11,000.00 4. Md. Abdul Sohid 3,25,000.00 5. Md. Abdul Mazid Tapadar 2,04,300.00 6. Md. Kamal Uddin 2,41,000.00 7. Md. Nazim Uddin Kha 2,20,000.00 4. Since the bid value offered by the eligible highest bidder was found to be more than Rs.1 Lakh, the tenders were forwarded to Zilla Parishad, Nagaon for doing the needful in accordance with law. The General Meeting of the Zilla Pari shad under General Standing Committed headed by the Chief Executive Officer was held on 01.07.2010 and accepted the tender of respondent No.7. Accordingly an or der dated 06.07.2010 was issued in favour of respondent No.7 directing to deposi t 30% of annual bid value within 7.7.2010 in the office of the Zilla Parishad. T he action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in settling the market is under challen ge in the instant writ proceeding. 5. Heard Mr. AK Goswami, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A Roshid, lear ned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Gogoi, learned State counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. RK Bora, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for respon dent Nos.3 and 4, Ms VL Sinha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Md . Giasuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 6. Mr. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel would contend that the settlement of Kh arikhana Weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.7 is required to be interf ered with being violative of Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rul es 2002 (for short ’Rules 2002’) since no prior and formal approval was obtained from the Government in accepting the lowest bid in preference of the highest bi d. 7. Mr. Bora, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 countering the argument advanced by Mr. Goswami, leaned Sr. counse l has referred to the pleadings filed in the form of an affidavit would urge tha t the tender of the writ petitioner was found irregular since the writ petitione r failed to mention the quantum of land to be given as mortgage by the guarantor in the tender form and also not submitted the debt clearance certificate of Gao n Panchayat which is required to be submitted as per the NIT. The standing commi ttee did not accept the values of other tenderers which were exorbitant, more so , when the bid value of the previous settlement was Rs.1,52,101/- for the year 2 009-2010 and would further contend that if the settlement of the market is made with one of the higher bids then the public would face harassment in the shape o f the burden of heavy tolls and therefore, the standing committee did not consid er to accept the higher bid values for settlement considering the public interes t. In regard to approval from the Government as required under Rule 47(10) of th e Rules, 2002, Mr. Bora has submitted that Government has been moved for the sam e. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has supported the argumen ts advanced by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and would urge that since the settlem ent is made and he has deposited the kist money as required under the terms and conditions of NIT and he is running the market no interference is called for und er writ jurisdiction. 9. Countering the arguments advanced by the respondents, Mr. Goswami, learn ed Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the arguments advanc ed relating to the tender being irregular, is incorrect since the tender was fou nd valid as furnished by the Zilla Parishad under the Right to Information Act w hich has been brought on record. 10. Considered the arguments advanced. Perused the relevant records includin g the pleadings of the parties. The only question left to be answered as to whet her the General Standing Committee is justified in settling the Kharikhana Weekl y market in favour of the respondent No. 7 in violation of Rule 47 (10) of the R ules 2002 who is admittedly one of the lowest bidder amongst the tenderers. To a nswer the question it is needful to refer to Rule 47(10) of the Rules, 2002 whic h is quoted hereunder: 47(10). The tender of highest bidder shall be accepted. Acceptance of tender ot her than the highest bid shall require the Government prior and formal approva l. 11. On a query made by the court relating to prior and formal approval of th e Government was obtained or not since the settlement was made with one of the l owest bidder in preference to other highest bidder, the State counsel representi ng the respondent No. 1 replied in the negative meaning thereby the government p rior and formal approval was not obtained before settlement of Kharikhana Weekly market in favour of the respondent No. 7 and on this ground alone the writ peti tion deserves to be allowed. The settlement order dated 22.6.2010 is thus interf ered with. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order of settlement dated 22.6.10 passed in fa vour of respondent No.7 is quashed and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to pa ss fresh order of settlement of the market for the remaining part of the year ta king into account the tenders submitted by the tenderers pursuant to the NIT iss ued vide No.DAP/1/2008-09 dated 30.4.10. The fresh order shall be passed in acco rdance with law within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. 13. In the meanwhile, the Kharikhana weekly market shall be run by the respo ndent Nos.3 and 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above direc tion. No costs.