JUDGMENT :

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the action on the part of the respondent Mangaldoi Municipal Board authorities in settling the Fish Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 inter alia on the ground that the bid of the petitioner was found to be a valid one; the petitioner’s offered bid value was a higher one than that of the respondent no. 6 and there was infraction of Rule 7 of “the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam”, on the part of the respondent Mangaldoi Municipal Board authorities in granting the settlement.

2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issue raised in this writ petition, can be delineated, in brief, as follows:-

2.1 A Tender Notice dated 27.04.2022 [‘the Tender Notice’] for settlement of markets/parking stands/fisheries, etc. was published by the Chairman, Mangaldoi Municipal Board inviting sealed bids from intending bidders for settlement of a number of markets. By the said Tender Notice, a number of markets/parking stands/fisheries, etc. were sought to be settled. One such market was ‘the Fish Market’ within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent Mangaldoi Municipal Board for the year : 2022-2023. The last date of submission of bids was upto 01-00 p.m., 23.05.2022. As per the Tender Notice, the minimum value of the Fish Market was fixed @ Rs. 6,59,962/-and the successful bidder had to deposit 2% of Rs. 6,59,962/-as the earnest money deposit.

2.2 It is an admitted position, as revealed from the records of settlement, that in response to the Tender Notice for settlement of Fish Market, a total of 6 [six] nos. of bids were received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order, quoted by the 6 [six] nos. of bidders were as under :-

2.3 When the Chairman, Mangaldoi Municipal Board issued an order of settlement dated 30.05.2022 settling the Fish Market in favour of the respondent no. 6 at his offered bid value of Rs. 12,25,000/-, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition challenging the said action of the respondent Municipal Board authorities in settling the Fish Market in favour of the respondent no. 6.

3. Heard Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Chetia, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 – 5; and Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6

4. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bid of the petitioner was found to be a valid one by the respondent Municipal Board authorities and the petitioner’s offered bid value was higher than the respondent no. 6. Mr. Rahman has further submitted that after passing of the order of settlement on 30.05.2022, the 1st highest bidder viz. Tarapad Das by writing a letter dated 04.06.2022, addressed to the Chairman, Mangaldoi Municipal Board, had sought refund of his earnest money deposit as he could not get the settlement of the Fish Market. But the petitioner has not sought refund of his earnest money deposit and challenged the arbitrary action on the part of the respondent Municipal Board authorities in settling the Fish Market in favour of the respondent no. 6, who had offered a lesser bid value than the petitioner. Mr. Rahman has further submitted that Rule 7 of ‘the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees