1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. A. Chakravorty, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8. None appears for respondent Nos. 6, 9 to 13 despite service of notice.

2. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 8, 9 to 13 and some other tenderers totaling 13 tenderers had submitted their respective tenders in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 3.6.2017 issued by the President of Boginadi Anchalik Panchayat inviting bids for settlement of 13 markets, ghats, fisheries, etc., including Boginadi Weekly Market (Tuesday), for the period from 1.7.2017 to 30.6.2018. The petitioner had submitted bid for Rs. 8,39,999/- and the respondent No. 8 had submitted his tender for Rs. 8,31,165/-. As the value of the tenders submitted was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Anchalik Panchayat forwarded the papers including the tender papers and comparative statement prepared to the Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad.

3. By the order dated 10.7.2017, the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zilla Parishad communicated acceptance of tender of the respondent No. 8 at his tender value.

4. Admittedly, rate quoted by the petitioner was higher than the rate of the respondent No. 8. Respondent Nos. 9 to 13 had submitted tenders quoting rates higher than the petitioner and the respondent No. 8. As noticed above, the higher tenderers had chosen not to respond to this proceeding.

5. In the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it is stated that the tender of the petitioner is defective as the petitioner did not submit financial soundness certificate in terms of Clause 11 of the NIT from the competent authority but had submitted the same from the Mauzadar. It is also stated that the financial soundness certificate is required to be issued by the Circle Officer of the concerned Revenue Circle of the State of Assam.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted financial soundness certificate from the Mauzadar and that the respondent No. 8 had submitted the same from the jurisdictional Circle Officer.

7. At this stage, it will be relevant to note Clause 11 of the NIT (translated into English): “Tenderers will have to submit the Financial Soundness Certificate from appropriate departmental authority with the bid document.”

8. It is clear that the aforesaid Clause 11 is very ambiguous and it is not indicated as to who is the competent departmental authority to issue such financial soundness certificate.

9. Mr. Das has submitted that in the previous years, settlements had been offered to tenderers who had submitted financial soundness certificate from Mauzadars and the comparative statement prepared this year also demonstrates that a substantial number of tenderers had submitted their tenders with financial soundness certificate from the Mauzadar. In this connection, he draws my attention to paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has further submitted that nothing is brought on record by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or by the State respondents to demonstrate that Circle Officer is a competent authority to issue financial soundness certificate. That apart, it is submitted by him that the petitioner had provided as security his own land valued at Rs. 8,40,000/-, which is duly certified by the Circle Officer of the Revenue Circle in question and therefore, in view of the ambiguity in Clause 11 of the NIT, it will be unreasonable to reject the tender of the petitioner. He has also submitted that respondent No. 8 did not offer his own land but had taken the assistance of his guarantors in providing security.

10. Mr. Chutia has submitted that even if in the past, financial soundness certificates issued by the Mauzadar had been accepted for the purpose of grant of settlement, a wrong committed cannot be perpetuated. He has submitted