JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K Sarma, 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, 5 & 6 and Mr. M Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. No one appears for the respondent No. 7, the private respondent.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the State respondents not selecting the petitioner as the successful bidder for running the Mushalpur Bi-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 Mushalpur Bi-weekly Market. However, the 2nd highest bidder namely, the respondent No. 7 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 Mushalpur Bi-weekly Market for the year 2022-2023, should be set aside and a direction be issued to the State respondents, to settle the Mushalpur Bi-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 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 vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13802-13805/2019.

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

6. The comparative statement of the tenderers in respect of the Mushalpur Bi-weekly Market shows that there were three bidders/tenderers for the said market. The Government schedule rate for the Mushalpur Bi-Weekly Market was fixed at Rs.1,11,100/-. The bids of the tenderers are reproduced below as follows:-

7. Condition Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the Notice dated 17.06.2022 states as follows:-

“11. The competent authority shall make settlement with the highest bidder if all the necessary documents and Governments revenue are found at order. In case of settlement is not made with the highest bidder, the competent authority shall record reasons in writing for their decision. The competent authority before awarding the settlement shall make necessary enquiry as regard to ascertain the attending circumstances of the concerned Markets/Go-Hats/Parking/Par-Ghats/Ferries/Cattle Pounds etc. The competent authority shall also keep in mind the public interest as well as to the absurdity of the rates offered by the intending tenderers.

The tender document itself provides the rate which shall be charged from petty venders