5th respondent appears through counsel. Shri S. A. Laskar, Senior Government Advocate appears for respondents 1 to 4. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing in the case.

The dispute arose out of an attempted sale and settlement of Jonai daily and weekly market under the Jonai Mahkuma Parishad. 5th respondent was a successful tenderer for the year 1990-91 at a bid amount of Rs. 2,75,357.00. For the year 1991-92 tenders wire called for. The petitioner, 5th respondent and others submitted tenders, petitioner for Rs. 3,51,557.00 and the 5th respondent for Rs. 2, 21,505.00. The petitioner's tender was accepted by Annexure A dated 20.6.91 and he was asked by that to deposit security money and kist amount totalling Rs, 3,00,000.00. He took the plea that it wa& contrary to relevant rules which required him to deposit only 25% as security amount. Thereafter the second tender notice was issued. The petitioner did not participate in the tender. The highest tender was that of 5th respondent at Rs.l,51,230.00. It is not clear as to what exactly the authority did. it is clear that the 5th respondent approached the Govt. with a submission that in the ; previous year he had suffered a loss and therefore for the present year settlement should be given to him at a concessional rate. The Government by Annexure B, order dated 7.8.91 directed the settlement to be made in his favour for Rs. 1,51,230.00 plus 7%. Meanwhile the authority concerned entered into settlement with the petitioner by which the petitioner was asked to manage the market for the year 1991-92 at the amount bid by him in the first tender. It is submitted that in response to this he deposited Rs. .90,000.00 which is slightly more than one-fourth of the amount. But subsequently i Annexure B order was implemented and being aggrieved he has filed .this j writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained before us that the petitioner still stands by the amount offered by him in the first tender, namely, Rs. 3,51,557.00 and the Annexure A order requiring him to deposit Rs. 3,00,000'00 is illegal and contrary to the Rule, but then it is to be seen that he did not challenge before the Court at the appropriate time Annexure A order. On the last occasion we asked the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, whether the 5th respondent is prepared to offer a bid higher than that of the petitioner. The learned counsel in consultation with his client who is present in Court offered bid of Rs. l.000/- in excess of Rs. 3,51,557.00, In the light of the fact that there were laches on the part of the petitioner in not challenging Annexure A order in time and in the interest of State and the public finance we think it appropriate to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution to accept the present offer made by the 5th respondent which incidentally is more than double the amount for which the Government settled the market by order Annexure B. The facts of the present case as well as other cases which are coming before us indeed reveal a sorry state of affairs in regard to matter of public finance vitally affecting the State and public interest. The State as well as the officers of the State while being required to conform to the Rules relating to the settlement, are also required to safeguard public interest and public finance. We cannot appreciate, however, why the Government felt themselves compelled to accept such low amount of Rs. 1,51,230.00 (Plus 7% in excess) when the 5th respondent himself was a- successful bidder for the previous year for 2,75,357.00 and a bid of Rs. 3,51,557.00 is given for the present year. We make this observation merely to alert the State and its officers on the need to be more alert in safeguarding public interest.

In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above we dispose of the writ petition in the following manner :

(1) In case the 5th respondent deposits with the 4th respondent 25% of Rs. 3,52,557.00 within seve