JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the common order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6379/2018. By the common order dated 04.04.2019, the learned Single Judge had disposed of two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 6379/2018 & W.P.(C) No. 6416/2018. While dismissing the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6416/2018, the learned Single Judge had allowed the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 6379/2018, by setting aside the settlement order dated 27.07.2018 passed in favour of the appellant herein in respect of Baralimari Bi-Weekly Market under Morigaon district and the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Parishad was directed to settle the market in favour of the respondent No. 6 herein, who was the writ petitioner, by fixing the revenue proportionately in terms of the bid value offered by him i.e. Rs. 1,35,220.00.

2. Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned State Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 3.

3. By a Tender Notice dated 02.06.2018, Laharighat Anchalik Panchayat invited sealed tenders, affixing court-fee stamp of Rs. 8.25 on the envelope, for settlement of 13 (thirteen) nos. of markets including Baralimari Bi-Weekly Market, for the year 2018-2019 as per the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended. In respect of Baralimari Bi-Weekly Market (the Market, in short), the annual value was fixed at Rs. 42,094.00. Responding to the said Tender Notice, 10 (ten) nos. of bidders including the appellant and the respondent No. 6, submitted their sealed bids. After opening the bids, a comparative statement was prepared by a Settlement Committee constituted for the purpose. The respondent No. 6 was found to have offered a bid value of Rs. 1,35,220.00, but his bid was rejected on the ground that his sealed bid was not accompanied by affixation of the requisite court-fee stamp of Rs. 8.25. The envelope containing the bid of the respondent No. 6 was affixed only with court-fee stamp of Rs. 8.00, thereby, resulting in a deficit of Rs. 0.25. On the other hand, the appellant quoted a bid value of Rs. 1,22,790.00. Bid-value wise, the respondent No. 6 was 2nd highest bidder and the appellant was 4th highest bidder. Having found the bids of the first 3 bidders, value wise, defective, the market was settled with the appellant finding him to be the highest valid bidder, by an order dated 27.07.2018 of the Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Parishad for the period from 01.08.2018 to 30.06.2019 at his bid value of Rs. 1,22,790.00.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 6 instituted the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 6379/2018, assailing the impugned order of settlement dated 27.07.2018 primarily on two grounds, firstly, the condition of affixation of court-fee stamp of Rs. 8.25 was not an essential condition and the deficit court-fee of Rs. 0.25 was insignificant. The same being curable in nature, such deficit could not have entailed rejection of his bid, and secondly, the bid of the appellant was invalid as he had submitted Call Deposit instead of Fixed Deposit as security money in violation of condition No. 11 of the Tender Notice, which was an essential condition breach of which called for rejection of the tender.

5. The learned Single Judge had found that the requirement of affixing court-fee stamp of Rs. 8.25 was not an essential condition breach of which shall invite rejection of the bid. Though deficit of court-fee stamp of Rs. 0.25 was a defect but the same was rectifiable and prior to such rejection, an opportunity to the respondent No. 6 was called for since his bid was the highest. On that count, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition with the direction to make consequentia