1. Heard Mr.N Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.936/2017 and Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.5217/2016. Also heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.5570/2016 as well as for the respondent No.7 in WP(C)No.5217/2016 and respondent No.5 in WP(C)No.936/2017 respectively and Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.7230/2016.

2. As all the writ petitions assail the common order dated 08.08.2016 of the Chief Executive Officer, Nagaon Zilla Parishad, which is an order of settlement of the Balisatra Bi-weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.5 and as the learned counsel Mr. A Sarma is representing the said respondent No.5 in WP(C)No.936/2017, therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the said respondents need not be heard any further in the said writ petitions.

3. The issues for determination and the grounds for challenge being the same in all the four writ petitions and as the respondents are represented in all the above writ petitions, it appears that there is sufficient representation of the respondents in all the four writ petitions.

4. A NIT was issued by the Executive Officer-cum-Ex-Officio Secretary of the Batdruba Anchalik Panchayat dated 01.05.2016, inter alia, inviting tendered bids for settlement of, amongst others, the Balisatra Bi-weekly Bazar. The Government rate for the year 2015-2016 for the said Balisatra Bi-weekly Bazar was fixed at Rs.6,30,000/- while the earnest money was fixed at Rs.31,500/-. Clause 7 of the NIT, inter alia, provides that once the tendered bid is submitted, the same cannot be withdrawn and after it is so done, if the bidder, who is settled with the market refuses to accept the settlement, the earnest money would be forfeited. Clause 26 Gha further provides that notice would be issued by the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat indicating the approved rate at which the settlement holders would take the toll/tax from the respective stall operator in the market.

5. Upon opening of the tendered bids, a comparative statement was prepared by the respondent, Nagaon Zilla Parishad. As per the comparative statement, the petitioner in WP(C)No.936/2017, had offered the value of Rs.83,50,111/- and it is stated that in respect of all the requirements enumerated in the comparative statement, the said tenderer had submitted all the required documents. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5217/2016, it is stated that the said tenderer had quoted the rate of Rs.82,02,910/- and the said tenderer has also submitted all the required documents. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7230/2016, it is stated that the said tenderer had quoted a rate of Rs.66,12,712/- and had also submitted all the documents as enumerated in the comparative statement.

6. The comparative statement further states that the respondent No.5 in favour of whom the settlement was made had quoted a rate of Rs.61,00,061/- and that the said tenderer had also submitted all the required documents as enumerated in the comparative statement. It is also noticed that at the end of the comparative statement a note had been put up indicating that though the tenders placed at Sl.Nos.2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the comparative statement, are all found to be valid tenders in all respects, but the rate offered by each of them are much more higher in comparison to the previous year, and, therefore, there is an apprehension of there being excessive tax burden for the general people and, as such, for public interest, the tendered bid of the said tenderers ought not be considered for settlement. Accordingly, it is stated that the general standing committee had taken an anonymous decision to settle the market in respect of respondent No.5, who had quoted a rate of Rs.61,00,061/-. It may be noticed that the petitioner in WP(C)No.936/2017 had quoted a rate of Rs.83,50,111/-, the petitioner in WP(C) in