Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. In WP(C) 25/2015, I have heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

2. In WP(C) No. 348/2015, I have heard Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, Mr. A Matin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 and Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8.

3. In WP(C) No. 532/2015, I have heard Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. A Matin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9.

4. All these three writ petitions are filed in connection with settlement of Balisatra Bi-weekly market and therefore, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions had been taken up for disposal together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

5. The pleaded case in WP(C) No. 25/2015 filed by one Jalal Uddin is as follows:

"(i) Batradava Anchalik Panchayat had issued a Notice Inviting Tender, for short, NIT, on 30.4.2014 inviting tenders for settlement of various markets including Balisatra Bi-weekly Market and the petitioner had participated by submitting tender for Balisatra Bi-weekly Market. A total number of 61 tenderers had submitted tenders and the tender papers were opened on 14.6.2014. Being the highest valid bidder, the market in question was settled with him vide settlement order dated 26.9.2014 for the period from 29.9.2014 to 30.6.2015 for an amount of Rs. 20,15,382/-. The petitioner had started running the market and had paid an amount of Rs. 8,30,000/- as kist money to the Government and had also invested substantial amount of money for its overall management. The order of settlement made in favour of the petitioner was challenged in WP(C) No. 5384/2014 filed by the respondent No. 8.

(ii) While issuing notice of motion on 22.10.2014, the order of settlement was made subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, two other writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 5212/2014 and WP(C) No. 5330/2014, were also filed challenging the order of settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner. In none of the cases any interim order was passed by this Court and the writ petitions were later on withdrawn. However, while the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 8 was pending before this Court, he had also approached the State respondents by filing a complaint petition.

(iii) By the impugned order dated 2.1.2015, passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Department, the order of settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner was held to be illegal, inappropriate and illegal and accordingly, the order of settlement was quashed and the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad was directed to settle the market with the respondent No. 8."

6. The factual matrix emerging from WP(C) No. 348/2015 filed by Md. Ruhul Amin may be noticed:

"(i) The petitioner had submitted the tender for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month, further mentioning in the tender that if the market is settled with him, he would deposit the entire kist money within a period of one week from the date of settlement.

(ii) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3256/2014 challenging the Land Valuation Certificates dated 5.5.2007 and 18.6.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Dhing in favour of the Jamindars (Guarantors) of some tenderers and by an order dated 27.6.2014, while issuing notice of motion, this Court had directed that tenders of respondent Nos. 6 to 29 therein should not be considered for settlement of the market and the set