Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. Notice to respondent No. 5 was sent on 19.09.2014 by registered post with A/D. There is office note, dated 11.11.2014, indicating that neither the A/D card nor the notice with "un-served" remark has been received back. Respondent No. 5 is the President of Karunabari Anchalik Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Anchalik Panchayat).

2. Having regard to the period of time that has elapsed from the date of despatch of notice to respondent No. 5 by registered post with A/D, service of notice on respondent No. 5 is deemed to be complete.

3. The case was partly heard on 24.02.2015. However, no order, inadvertently, was passed with regard to the service of notice on respondent No. 5 and, therefore, to-day it is recorded that notice on respondent No. 5 is deemed to have been served.

4. Mr. Talukdar has produced the records relating to the settlement process by the Anchalik Panchayat as well by the Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Zilla Parishad), which had passed the order of settlement, which is impugned in the present proceeding.

5. By an order dated 28.08.2014, the respondent No. 6 was given settlement of the Harmoti Sunday Weekly Market at an amount of Rs. 10,02,631/- considering the period of settlement with effect from 01.09.2014 to 30.06.2015. The bid of the respondent No. 6 was for an amount of Rs. 12,12,500/- for one year and, as per the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, NIT) dated 15.05.2014, the settlement for the aforesaid market was to be given for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015.

6. The petitioner and the respondent No. 6 along with 15 other persons had submitted tenders in respect of the market in question. The petitioner submitted his bid at Rs. 17,81,201/-. One Hemanta Kumar Borah had submitted his tender for an amount of Rs. 15,05,005/-.

7. After opening of the tenders, Karunabari Anchalik Panchayat prepared a comparative statement. In the said comparative statement, mark had been given against columns in respect of Bank Draft, Court Fee, loan clearance certificate for the year 2014-2015, clearance of GP, AP, VAT, land value, Bakijai, Photo, affidavit and SS. So far as the bid of Hemanta Kumar Borah was concerned, it was indicated that affidavit required to be submitted along with the tender was in the form of photocopy and, in the remarks column, "incomplete tender submitted" had been recorded. With regard to the tender of respondent No. 6, in the "affidavit" column, "X" mark was given and, in the remarks column, it was noted that:

"Tenderer has not submitted documents as required in the tender notice".

8. As provided under the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, the Act), as the yearly bid value of the market in question exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, the Anchalik Panchayat forwarded the tender papers to the Zilla Parishad for taking further steps for settlement of the market in question.

9. From the perusal of the records produced by Mr. Talukdar, it appears that the Zilla Parishad had also prepared a comparative statement of the tenders submitted. With regard to the tender of the petitioner, the Zilla Parishad had noted, against column of Bakijai that Bakijai certificate was not submitted in his own name and, in the remarks column, it was recorded that full particulars, as sought for in the tender notice, had not been submitted. The tenderers, who had submitted bids higher than the petitioner, were also found to have submitted tenders with incomplete documents. Hemanta Kumar Borah was found to be the highest valid tenderer and the respondent No. 6, the second highest tenderer.

10. The resolution adopted in the meeting of the Standing Committee goes to show that the Standing Committee approved the final settlement in favour