JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Government of Assam whereas Shri P. Deka, learned counsel has appeared for the private respondent no. 6.

2. It is seen that both the contesting respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner however has not filed any rejoinder-affidavit.

3. Considering the nature of the grievance and also the fact that this Court has disposed of a number of cases concerning a similar issue, this case has been taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner however at the outset submits that facts are distinguishable in the present case which he will elaborate in the course of arguments.

5. The issue hinges around the settlement of a market namely the Bhurbandha Weekly Market. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 10.05.2022 for settlement of the said market pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted his bid along with other bidders including the respondent no. 6. In the said notice, there is a specific clause being Clause No. 10 that if the highest bidder was found to be lacking in certain documents except Court Fee and Earnest Money, 3 days time would be allotted to give an opportunity to produce the same and rectify the bids. The specific case of the petitioner in the instant case is that though the bid of the petitioner no. 6 was found to be the highest, the bid was lacking for non-submission of two mandatory documents namely Land Valuation Certificate and Non-Encumbrance Certificate. The petitioner’s case is that while exercising the powers under Clause No. 10, there has been arbitrariness inasmuch as the power was exercised on two occasions.

6. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel clarifies that the power vested on the authorities under Clause 10 is not per-se under challenge but the manner in which the said power has been exercised is questioned in this proceedings. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the bid of the respondent no. 6 has been dealt with by giving undue benefit and favour and the same is vitiated and therefore, liable to be interfered with.

7. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to an earlier order dated 26.09.2019 pertaining to the same market and the said respondent no. 6 whereby, his offer was cancelled as he had failed to submit the requisite Land Valuation Certificate (within the given date) and Duty Stamped Lease.

8. On the other hand, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department submits that the entire objective of the Clause is to secure the maximum revenue as contract of this nature are to fetch revenue for the State. By referring to the bids offered by the parties, the learned Standing Counsel submits that while the rate of the respondent no. 6 is Rs.1,84,351/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Three Hundred Fifty One) per month, that of the petitioner is Rs. 31,111/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand One Hundred Eleven). In other words, the bid of the private respondent is almost six times the bid of the petitioner.

9. Secondly, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel also raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition questioning the locus of the petitioner as in between the bid of the respondent no. 6 and the petitioner, there are other bidders and even if the petitioner is successful in this writ petition, no fruits can be enjoyed out of the litigation by the petitioner and on the behest of such a party, the adjudication itself is not required to be done. Finally, defending the decision of the Department, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the documents which were submitted on a later stage are not the two essential documents mentioned in the said Clause namely Court Fee and Earnest Money but certain other documents which were called for from the respondent no. 6 on two occasions. The learned Standing Co