JUDGMENT :

The subject matter of these seven petitions being similar which pertains to settlements made by the Jorhat Municipal Board of various markets / parking space under it and the issue being common, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. The primary ground is that in spite of the bid offered by the petitioners in their respective items being highest. However, ignoring the same and based on certain irrelevant considerations, the settlement has been sought to be given to the private respondents in their respective cases. In fact, in all these writ petitions there are interim orders operating by which the impugned order of settlement are stayed.

2. To address the issues, it is necessary to put on record the facts of the cases in brief.

3. The Jorhat Municipal Board (hereinafter called the JMB) had floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 23.06.2022 inviting bids for settlement of as many as 13 nos. of Markets / Stands for the period 01.08.2022 to 31.03.2023. The petitioners had submitted their bids in respect of different markets / stands and their bids were found to be technically responsive and accordingly the price bids were opened. On such opening, it was found that the bid of the petitioners were higher than that of the private respondent in spite of which the settlement has been offered to the private respondent. To appreciate the factual aspects, the bids of the petitioners’ vis-à-vis the private respondents along with the other details are given hereinbelow in the form of a chart.

4. As indicated above, so far as WP(C)/5919/2022 (Truck Stand) is concerned, the private respondent's bid was 22 whereas the bid of the petitioner was ranked 3rd. In WP(C)/5920/2022 (Chowk Bazar) the private respondent's bid was 21st whereas the petitioner was 3rd. However, it is submitted that the first and second bidder had withdrawn their bids. In WP(C)/6002/2022 (BB Hall Market) the private respondent's bid was 8th whereas the petitioner was 2nd. In WP(C)/6006/2022 (Natun Bazar) the private respondent's bid was 16th whereas the petitioner was 2nd where the highest bidder had withdrawn. In WP(C)/6001/2022 (Sagoli Bazar) the private respondent's bid was 2nd whereas the petitioner was 1st. In WP(C)/6979/2022 (Pujadubi Market) the private respondent's bid was 8th whereas the petitioner was 3rd. In WP(C)/6947/2022 (Vikram Auto Parking Stand) the private respondent's bid was 8th whereas the petitioner was 2nd.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders of settlement in favour of the private respondents are opposed to the principles of fairness and transparency in matters of distribution of State largesse.

6. I have heard Shri T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/6002/2022 & 6006/2022; Shri P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/5919/2022 assisted by Ms. M. Nirola