The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of transparency, fairness, and openness in the tender process, emphasizing that the authorities' actions must not leave an impression of favoritism and discrimination against the bidders.

1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 as well as Mr. G. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam representing the respondent Nos.1 and 3. Respondent No.5 in both the cases did not appear despite receipt of notice.

2. The basic grievance of the writ petitioners in both the above noted writ petitions is that they being the highest bidder in respect of the tender process initiated by the respondent No.4 for settlement of the markets in question, the impugned decision of the authorities to award the settlement in favour of the respondent No.5 in both the cases, who had quoted a rate much less than the writ petitioners, is vitiated by absolute illegality, arbitrariness and is a glaring instance of mala fide exercise of powers. Since the grievance expressed by the writ petitioners arises out of identical fact situation involving common questions of law, hence I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

FACTS IN WP(C) NO.3476/2014 :

3. In this writ petition the respondent No.4, viz., the Block Development Officer, Tihu-Barama Development Block, Baska (BTAD), Assam had issued a Tender Notice bearing No.TBDB/Market/19/2014-15/1292 dated 31.05.2014 inviting bids for settlement of the “Barama Hat “ Market for a period of one year i.e. for the year 2014-15 with the highest bidder. Clause 12 of the Tender Notice dated 31.05.2014 inter-alia contained a condition which reads as follows:-

“12. The competent authority shall have the right to accept or reject any tender and authority is not binding to accept or reject any tender including the offered abnormal high against the schedule rate of the market.”

4. In response to the said tender notice the petitioner herein, Sri Saitya Barman, had submitted his bid along with other tenderers. The respondent No.5, Sri Bisti Kumar Boro, had also submitted his bid. The tender was opened on 18-6-2014 .On opening of the bids submitted by the respective bidders the writ petitioner had emerged as the highest bidder having quoted a price of Rs.9,17,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventeen Thousand). The respondent No.5 had quoted Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) and emerged as the third highest bidder. From a perusal of the comparative statement prepared by the tendering authority, the position that emerged after opening of the bids is indicated in a tabular form herein below :-

Sl. No.	Name of the tenderers	Price quoted	Position	Remarks
1.	Sri Saitya Barman (the petitioner)	9,17,000/-	1st	Documents are clear.
2.	Sri Naren Boro	8,00000/-	2nd	Documents are clear.
3.	Bisti Kumar Boro	5,00000/-	3rd	Documents are clear.
4.	Sri Dhaneswar Medhi	3,99,000/-	4th	Except column No.22 other documents are clear.
5.	Samin Boro	2,00000/-	5th	Documents are clear.

5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although he had emerged as the highest bidder and notwithstanding the fact that the documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be in order, yet the authorities had rejected his tender and on the contrary awarded the settlement in favour of the 3rd highest bidder i.e. the respondent No.5 by ignoring the fact that his documents were found to be in defective.

FACTS IN WP(C) NO.3469/2014 :

6. By issuing Tender Notice No. BDB/Market-31/2014-15/3189 dated 03.06.2014 the respondent No.4, (BDO, Baska) had invited bids for settlement of the market, viz., “Adalbari Daily Market” in favour of the highest bidder subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions contained in the Tender Notice. The clause No.11 of the notice dated 03.06.2014 contained a similar condition as that of clause No.12 of the Tender Notice dated 31.05.2014, which has been quoted herein before.

7. In response to the Tende