JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 and Mr. PK Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the State respondents not selecting the petitioner as the successful bidder for running the Doomni Weekly Market, for the 2022-2023 period, from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023, in pursuant to the Notice dated 17.06.2022, though the petitioner was the highest bidder.

3. The petitioner’s case is that in terms of the Notice dated 17.06.2022, the highest bidder was to be selected for running the Doomni Weekly Market. However, the 4th highest bidder namely, the respondent No. 6 has been selected. He accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 issued by the respondent No. 4, authorizing the respondent No. 6 to run the Doomni Weekly Market for the year 2022-2023, should be set aside and a direction be issued to the State respondents, to settle the Doomni Weekly Market in favour of the petitioner, for the year 2022-2023. He submits that the selection of the private respondent as the successful tenderer is not in terms with Condition No.11 of the Notice dated 17.06.2022, which required the State respondents to record reasons in writing for not selecting the highest bidder. He also submits that the petitioner will not change rates/tolls from vendors, beyond the rate fixed by the State respondents. He also submits that by accepting the bid of the petitioner, the State respondents stand to earn more money.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that as per Clause 11 and 13 of the Notice dated 17.06.2022, the State respondents are to see whether the rates given by the tenderers are reasonable. If they come to a decision that the rates provided by the petitioner are absurd and unjustified rates, the said tender can be rejected and a re-tender can also be issued by the State respondents. He also submits that the highest bidder is not automatically required to be selected for running the market, provided the State respondents record reasons for the same in writing. He also submits that as the State respondents had taken a decision to re-tender the settlement of the market place, this writ Court should not interfere with such a decision in a writ proceeding. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Narendra Damodardas Modi & Ors., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 25. He also submits that private interest cannot over-ride public interest and in this regard he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 362.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 & 7 submits that the bid quoted by the petitioner was exorbitantly high, as a result of which the authorities were of the opinion that the same would entail additional burden upon the public. Accordingly, the authorities had issued a re-tender of the market place on 19.10.2022. However, no one submitted their bids in respect of the re-tender dated 19.10.2022. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ court should not interfere in a tender process, where such interference could cause unnecessary loss to the Public Exchequer. He also submits that while rejecting the tender of any person, the authority is not required to give reasons. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India & Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13802-13805/2019.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The comparative statement of the bids of the tenderers in respect of the Doomni Weekly Market shows that there were five bidders/tenderers for the said market. The Government Schedule rate for the Doomni Weekly