JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. Heard Shri A.K. Baruahj learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, who has also produced the original records. Though respondent No. 4 has been served, as held by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2020, he has chosen not to contest the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, is that pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 31.05.2019 for settlement of various "Bazar/Ghat/Fisheries for the year 2019-2020", the petitioner had submitted his bid for the Uluwani Weekly Market under the Kuweritol Gaon Panchayat in the District of Nagaon (for short hereafter referred to as Market). The bids offered were opened and a Comparative Statement was prepared. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the bid offered by the petitioner was the highest (H1), he could learn that the respondent authorities were proposing to allot the Market to the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner was able to collect a copy of the provisional list dated 31.7.2019 from which it was clear that the settlement of the Market in question was awarded to the respondent No. 4. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted.

3. Shri Baruah, learned counsel has submitted that no reasons have been assigned as to why the bid of the petitioner which was regarded as H1 was ignored and revenue being of paramount importance in matter of settlement, such decision is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Comparative Statement annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition, it is submitted that the same did not indicate that the bid of the petitioner suffered from any technical flaws and his offer was Rs. 1,66,501/- and that of the respondent No. 4 was Rs. 1,50,000/-. Therefore, there was a difference of Rs. 16,501/- which is substantial from the perspective of the bid value. He submits that if there were any defect in the bid of the petitioner, the same would have been detected at the time of preparation of the Comparative Statement and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that there were no defects in the bid.

4. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though as per the said affidavit, there were certain defects in the bid submitted, the same not being termed as defects at the time of preparation of the Comparative Statement by the respondents, such grounds cannot be taken in the affidavit. Alternatively, it is submitted that the alleged defects are all curable in nature and, therefore, the bid could not have been termed as defective.

5. Specifically countering the averments made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in opposition, it is submitted by Shri Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged defect Nos. (a), (b) and (d) are contrary to the conditions of the NIT and further, the defect No. (c) regarding the affidavit which was stated to be unsigned is a curable defect. Further, referring to the pleadings in the affidavit-in-reply, more specifically a notification dated 28.06.2019, it is submitted that the said notification which has been issued by the highest authority of the Department states in clear terms that the tender of the highest bidder should not be cancelled merely on the ground of non-submission of required documents, except court fee and earnest money and to allow such highest bidder to furnish the documents before offering the settlement.

6. Reference is also made to Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial Rules), 2002 (hereafter for short Rules), which lays down that the bid of the highest bidder only shall be accepted and any deviation would require prior and formal approval of the Government.

In support of his projected case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws