Point of Law : When a bidder gets an order by suppression or concealment of material facts and the tendering authority despite having knowledge of the fact that the bidder has adopted a practice which can be termed as a fraudulent one because of practice of deception on such bidder’s part, then such an action does not go together with the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby, making in unsustainable in law and, therefore, the same is not condonable.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner by instituting this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed an order of settlement dated 24.08.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Kamrup Metro Zilla Parishad whereby a market named Dharapur Daily Market, had been settled in favour of the respondent no. 6 at her offered annual bid value of Rs. 6,52,505/. The petitioner while seeking setting aside of the consequential agreement executed between the respondent Kamrup [M] Zilla Parishad/Rani Anchalik Panchayat and the respondent no. 6 for the Dharapur Daily Market, has also made prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the settlement of Dharapur Daily Market in his favour contending that the bid of the petitioner was the highest valid bid.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the issues involved in this writ petition can be exposited, in brief, as under :

2.1. By a Tender Notice dated 01.06.2021 published under the hand of the President, Rani Anchalik Panchayat, sealed bids were invited from interested bidders for settlement of two markets under the territorial jurisdiction of Rani Anchalik Panchayat for the year : 2021-2022 i.e. for the period from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 in terms of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, an amended. One of the two markets which were sought to be settled by the Tender Notice, was Dharapur Daily Market [‘the Market’, for short]. In the Tender Notice, the minimum annual value of the Market was fixed at Rs. 3,36,258/-. The last date for submission of bids in response to the Tender Notice dated 01.06.2021 was up-to 3-00 p.m., 02.08.2021.

2.3. There is no dispute to the fact that in response to the Tender Notice dated 01.06.2021, 4 [four] nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, had submitted their bids with different bid values. The names of the bidders and the bid values they had offered, in the descending order, were as under :

3. After evaluation of the bids submitted by the participating bidders, the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order of settlement dated 24.08.2021 informed the respondent no. 6 that the Zilla Parishad had decided to accept her bid for an amount of Rs. 6,52,505/-for one year for settlement of the Market for the year : 2021-2022. It transpires that by the said order of settlement dated 24.08.2021, the respondent no. 4 asked the respondent no. 6 to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,26,252/-[Rs. 1,95,751/-towards 1st installment + Rs. 1,30,501/-towards security deposit] within a period of one week from 24.08.2021. The respondent no. 6 was also asked to execute an agreement for settlement of the Market on stamp papers by bearing the necessary cost.

4. After issuance of the order dated 24.08.2021, the petitioner stated to have made enquiries and come to learn that the husband of the respondent no. 6 viz. Sri Bijay Kalita was a settlement holder of the Market during the year : 2015-2016 and as such settlement holder, the husband of the respondent no. 6 defaulted in paying installments against the fixed settlement amount and as a result, he became a defaulter as per records of the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner has averred that though he submitted an application under the Right to Information [RTI] Act, 2005 on 31.08.2021 seeking information regarding the defaulting status of Sri Bijay Kalita i.e. the husband of the respondent no. 6, the respondent authorities in the Zilla Parishad did not furnish him the information requested for under the RTI Act, 2005.

5. It has been contended by the petitioner that there was deliberate suppression/concealment of material fact