The essence of open and competitive bidding is crucial in the tender process, and the rejection of higher offers must be justified with good and valid grounds. Fair and transparent processes are essential in the grant of state largesse.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. All the three writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less identical facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Kataki and Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) 2194/2003 and 2398/03 respectively. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in WP (C) 2350/03. Mr. G. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the private Respondents in all the cases as well as Mr. B. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation has also been heard.

3. The facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset.

By a notice dated 8-2-03 the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation invited tenders for settlement of as many as 10 different markets under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for the year 2003-2004. In the present set of cases, the relevant market in question is the Beltola Bi-Weekly Market. Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders issued, as many as 15 tenderers submitted their respective bids. The petitioner in WPC 2194/03 Shri Saurabh Das having quoted an amount of Rs. 30,99,999.00 was the 4th highest tenderer. The petitioner in WPC 2350/03 Shri Dipak Kumar Saikia having quoted an amount of Rs. 27,99,999.00 was the 7th highest tenderer whereas the petitioner in the third writ petition, i.e. WPC 2398/03 Shri Pawan Chandra Boro was the third highest tenderer, he having quoted an amount of Rs. 32,50,555.00. The market in question was settled by the authority in favour of the private Respondent Shri Bhubanjyoti Rabha by an order dated 13-3-2003. As the aforesaid settle, Shri Bhubanjyoti Rabha, had quoted an amount of Rs. 26,21,876.00, these writ petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 13-3-2003 on the short ground that the authority of the Corporation had gone wrong in rejecting the higher offer made by the writ petitioners and in preferring the private respondent for settlement of the market bypassing the claims of the writ petitioners.

4. The case projected on behalf of the writ petitioners, as noticed above, has been sought to be countered by the official respondents by filing a counter affidavit. The case put forward by the respondents in the affidavit filed appears to be that the authority of the Corporation had received several complaints, with regard to extortion, from the users of the market during the previous lease which was co-incidentally granted to the writ petitioner in WPC 2350/03. According to the authorities, the principal reason behind such extortion by the previous lessee and/or his nominees was on account of the high rate at which the market was settled and, therefore, to avoid repetition of such acts of extortion for the present term of the market, it was decided that a proportionate/reasonable offer would be at a rate double the estimated value of the market as mentioned in the notice inviting tender. As the estimated value was fixed at Rs. 15,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was considered to be an appropriate bid and on the said basis an order was passed for grant of settlement/contract in favour of one Sauravi Das, the sixth highest tenderer, who had offered an amount of Rs. 28,99,999/-. An order granting the contract in favour of aforesaid Sauravi Das is stated to have been issued by the Respondents, but as the requisite pre-deposits were not forthcoming, the authority proceeded to consider the case of the next person in the line, i.e. Shri Dipak Kumar Saikia, the petitioner in WPC 2350/03. As in the tender of aforesaid Dipak Saikia, the name of his father was mentioned differently from the name given by the said person in the tender submitted for the previous term of the market, the authority bypassed the claims of Shri Dipak Saikia and instead granted the contract in favour of the 8th highest tenderer Shri Bhubanjyoti Rabha, i.e. the private Responden