Amitava Roy, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the annulment of his settlement of the Barsola Weekly Market ('the market') by the impugned judgment and order passed in WP(C) 4843/2009 instituted by the respondent No. 7 herein.

2. We have heard Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. B. Goel, learned State counsel, for the official respondents and Mr. R.P. Sharma, senior Advocate for the respondent No. 7.

3. The admitted facts in brief need be narrated to introduce the background of the present lis. The Sonitpur Zila Parishad ('the Zila Parishad') vide the tender notice dated 8.8.2008 had invited tenders for settlement amongst others of the market for the period 1.10.2008 to 30.6.2009. As stipulated in the notice, the tender papers were received on 19.9.2008. In all, four tenderers contended for settlement of the market offering their bids recorded as follows.

Sl. No. Name of Tenderer Bid officered

1. Shri Sushil Malo Das (writ appellant) 2,42,101

2. Shri Sriknnta Thakur (writ petitioner) 2,75,401

3. Him Bahadur Chetri 2,01,000

4. Ashok Thakur 2,21,501

4. Following a scrutiny of the tenders and the documents accompanying the same and a comparative assessment of the bids, the Zila Parishad settled the market with the writ appellant vide its Order No. AZP/4/2008/8 dated 25.9.2008 for the aforementioned period. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 7 herein impugned the said settlement before this Court in WP(C) 4843/2008 impleading the writ appellant as respondent No. 7 therein. The writ petitioner alleged that he being the highest valid bidder, he ought to have been settled with the market and that his superior claim had been side tracked on irrelevant considerations and that the writ appellant had been favoured with the settlement due to his political clout.

5. The writ appellant resisted the challenge by filing his affidavit in which he inter alia asserted that though the bid of the writ petitioner was highest, the documents accompanying his tender were defective and not in conformity with the tender stipulations and, therefore, the settlement was validly awarded to him at his bid of Rs. 21,42,101. He categorically denied the allegation of political pressure impelling the settlement. In his reply affidavit, the writ petitioner reiterated his pleaded assertions in the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge noted that the writ petitioner's tender had been rejected on two grounds, namely, (1) want of similarity in the name and signature of the petitioner in the tender as well as the affidavit annexed thereto and (2) non-submission of "no dues certificate" by the concerned Anchalik Panchayat. On a perusal of the official records pertaining to the tender process, the learned Single Judge, however, negated both these grounds. It was held that there was no discrepancy in the name of the petitioner as disclosed in the tender notice and other accompanying documents and though his signatures appear in a short form the same did not invalidate his tender as thereby his identity was not rendered doubtful. It was further held that the requirement of furnishing "no dues certificate" from the Anchalik Panchayat was optional to that of the concerned Zila Parishad. It was noticed that in fact such "no dues certificate" issued in favour of the writ petitioner on 16.4.2008 by the Tezpur Zila Parishad had been submitted along with his tender. In these premise, having regard to Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, which obligates such settlement in favour of the highest bidder, the settlement in favour of the writ appellant was interfered with and a direction was made to the official respondents to award the market in favour of the writ petitioner for the remaining term.

7. Mr. Upadhayay has urged that the writ petitioner's tender being patently defective in absence of a "no dues certificate" by the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat, he is not entitled in law to the settlement, being ineligible therefore in t