Point of Law: Acceptance of a lesser bid may be permissible but in case of settlement of a market under the aegis of the Anchalik Panchayat and/or Zilla Parishad, the same is ordinarily required to be settled in favour of the highest valid bidder as per the Rule 47(10) of the Rules, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the action on the part of the Paschim Mangaldai Anchalik Parishad in settling Deonagaon Weekly Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 inter alia on the ground that despite the bid of the petitioner was found to be a valid and higher one than that of the respondent no. 6 the said market had not been settled with the petitioner and there was violation of the provisions of Section 109(6) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 (‘the Rules, 2002’ for short).

2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issue raised in this writ petition can be exposited, in brief, as follows:

2.1 A Tender Notice dated 23.06.2021 for settlement of a number of markets (‘Tender Notice’ for short) was published by the respondent no. 5 inviting sealed bids from intending bidders for their settlement for the financial year 2021-2022 for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022. By the said Tender Notice, a total of 6 nos. of markets within Paschim Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat were sought to be settled. One such market was Deonagaon Weekly Market (‘the Market’ for short) within the territorial jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat. As per the Tender Notice, the minimum value of the said Market was fixed at Rs. 77,000/- and the last date of submission of bids was initially fixed on 05.08.2021. The last date of submission of bids was, however, extended by a notice dated 18.09.2021. As per the notice dated 18.09.2021, the last date of submission of bids was fixed on 28.09.2021.

2.2 It is an admitted position, as revealed from the records of settlement, that in response to the Tender Notice for settlement of the Market, a total of 5 nos. of bids were received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order, quoted by the 5 nos. of bidders were as under:

2.3 When the respondent no. 5 issued an order of settlement dated 14.12.2021 settling the Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 at his offered bid value of Rs. 99,999.99, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition challenging the said action of the respondent authorities in settling the Market in favour of the respondent no. 6. As per the order of settlement passed on 14.12.2021, the period of settlement is up to 30.06.2022 and the Market has been settled with the respondent no. 6 at a proportionate amount of Rs. 53,843/- by taking into consideration the bid value of Rs. 99,999.99/- offered by the respondent no. 6 for a year.

3. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development (P&RD) Department for the respondent nos. 1-5 and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

4. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bid of the petitioner was found to be the valid and highest one by the General Standing Committee of Paschim Mangaldai Anchalik Panchayat. On the other hand, the bid of the respondent no. 6 was found to be the joint 4th highest amongst the 5 (five) nos. of participating bidders. It is his contention that if the valid bids were received having bid values more than Rs. 1,00,000/- then as per the provisions of Section 109(6) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, the Anchalik Panchayat had no authority to settle the Market, as such