Point of Law: Fairness demanded that the tendering authority should have disclosed to all the tenderers beforehand that the bid value above a particular amount or above a particular percentage of the scheduled rate would not be accepted.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing an order dated 28.10.2021 issued from the end of the respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 6 was directed to issue an order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 7 in respect of Simla Bazar (‘the Market’ for short) and a consequential order dated 09.11.2021 issued by the respondent no. 6 whereby the Market has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 7 at his offered bid value of Rs. 3,95,365/- for the Market.

2. The events leading to the institution of the writ petition can be exposited as under:

2.1. By a Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 6, sealed tenders were invited from interested bidders for settlement of a number of markets/Go-hats/Parkings/Par Ghats/Ferries/Cattle Pounds, etc. for the year 2021-2022 from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 under Jalah Development Block, Jalahghat. As per the Tender Notice, if the value of the scheduled rate for the concerned market, etc. was up to Rs. 50,000/-then the last date of submission of the tender documents at the office of the respondent no. 6 would be 20.06.2021 and if the value of the scheduled rate was above Rs. 50,000/-then the tender documents had to be dropped in the tender box kept at the Secretariat of the respondent Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) on or before 25.06.2021.

2.2. The Tender Notice had also set forth the terms and conditions for the competitive bidding process. One of the markets which was sought to be settled by the said Tender Notice was Simla Bazar (the Market) and the scheduled rate of the Market for the year 2021-2022 had been fixed at Rs. 3,85,365/-.

2.3. In response to the Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021, the petitioner and two other bidders submitted their bids by offering the following sums for the settlement of the Market:

2.4. After submission of the tender documents by the three bidders, the same were evaluated by the Market Settlement Committee constituted for the purpose, in a meeting held on 29.06.2021 and the Market Settlement Committee in that meeting also prepared a comparative statement by recording its remarks in the respective columns in respect of each of the documents required to be submitted by the bidders in terms of the Tender Notice. After preparation of the comparative statement, the same was forwarded to the office of the BTC Secretariat for according its approval.

2.5. Thereafter on 28.10.2021, the respondent Council had accorded its approval for settlement of the Market for the year 2021-2022 in favour of the respondent no. 7 at an amount of Rs. 3,95,365/- and the respondent no. 6 was accordingly directed to issue the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 7 and to execute a deed of agreement as per the terms and conditions laid down in the Tender Notice. Pursuant to the approval accorded by the respondent Council by its letter dated 28.10.2021, the respondent no. 6 had issued the order of settlement dated 09.11.2021 in favour of the respondent no. 7, thereby, settling the Market for collection of tolls at the Market for the period w.e.f. 09.11.2021 to 30.06.2022.

3. I have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for the respondent nos. 2-6. As per the order dated 03.02.2022 of the Lawazima Court, the notice upon the respondent no. 7 was found to have been duly served, but none has appeared for the respo