Suman Shyam DECISION
Suman Shyam, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7. Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 8. Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel, is present on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9 to 18.
2. The order of settlement of the Sulung Daily Market under the Pachim Kaliabor Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Nagaon, dated 31.07.2019, issued in favour of the respondent No. 8 is under challenge in the present writ petition. Pachim Kaliabor Anchalik Panchayat had earlier issued NIT dated 01.06.2019 inviting bids for settlement of various markets including the Sulung Daily Market as indicated in the NIT. Responding to the NIT dated 01.06.2019, as many as 18 tenderers had submitted their bids for the Sulung Daily Market. After opening the bids, the writ petitioner herein was found to have quoted the price of Rs. 13,84,845/- per annum and had emerged at Serial No. 13 in order of price quoted by the bidders whereas the respondent No. 8 was the lowest bidder placed at serial No. 18 having quoted Rs. 6,87,959.25 per annum. The grievance expressed in this writ petition pertains to the manner in which the bids were evaluated by the respondents leading to issuance of the order of settlement dated 31.07.2019 in favour of the respondent No. 8 who was the lowest bidder.
3. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the tender of the respondent No. 8, besides being technically defective, was also the lowest bid and therefore, in view of the specific provision of Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, the respondents did not have the authority or jurisdiction to issue the order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 8 without obtaining prior approval of the Government. By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Mahanta has argued that the market in question was settled in the year 2014 for an annual rate of Rs. 11,99,988.00 and thereafter, in the year 2016 for a sum of Rs. 13,20,000.00 per annum. That apart, in the tender notice itself, had indicated reserve price of the market as Rs. 5,31,141/- per annum. Such being the position, there was no justifiable ground for the respondent No. 4 to issue the impugned order of settlement dated 31.07.2019 in favour of the respondent No. 8 by ignoring the higher offer made by his client. The learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 and for issuing a mandamus for settling the market with his client.
4. Mr. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, has produced the records. A perusal of the relevant records goes to show that the only reason why the settlement was awarded in favour of the respondent No. 8 for the annual revenue of Rs. 6,87,959.20 was on account of the fact that all other 17 bidders were found to have quoted exorbitant price which according to the authorities, were not realistic and therefore, could pose difficulties in realisation of the kist money.
5. Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8, submits that the bid submitted by his client was balanced and reasonable and that is why it was accepted by the Zila Parishad. The learned senior counsel has further argued that the Government is yet to convey its approval as per Rule 47(10) of the Rules of 2002 and therefore, the writ petition is premature. On such count a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 9 to 18, has submitted that after the order of settlement was issued in favour of the respondent No. 8, his clients have withdrawn from the tender process by seeking refund of the earnest money and therefore, they do not have any surviving interest in the matter.
7. I have considered the arguments made on behalf of the parties and have gone through the materials available on record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that amongst the 18 tenderers who had submitted their bids in response to the NIT date........