JUDGMENT :

By a Tender Notice dated 04.05.2022, the Baitamari Anchalik Panchayat under the Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad invited sealed bids for settlement of a nos. of markets/ghats/fisheries for the Panchayat Year : 2022-2023, that is, for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023. One of the markets in respect of which sealed bids were invited was Kabaitary Half-Weekly Market [‘the Market’, for short]. As per the Tender Notice, the last date of submission of bids was up-to 02-00 p.m., 18.06.2022. In response to the Tender Notice dated 04.05.2022, 6 [six] nos. of bidders submitted their bids for the Market. The petitioner and the respondent no. 7 were amongst those 6 [six] nos. of bidders. After submission of the bids, the General Standing Committee of the Anchalik Panchayat evaluated the bids and thereafter, a comparative statement was prepared recording the remarks therein in respect of each of the bids. As the bid value of the highest valid bidder was found more than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Baitamari Anchalik Panchayat after identifying the higher valid bidder, forwarded the tender papers to the Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad for confirmation in compliance of the provision contained in sub-section [6] of Section 109 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. On receipt of the tender papers from the Anchalik Panchayat, the Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad issued the order of settlement on 04.07.2022 in favour of the respondent no. 7, thereby, settling the Market at his offered bid value of Rs. 30,15,000/-. By the order of settlement dated 04.07.2022, the successful bidder i.e. the respondent no. 7 was directed to execute a lease deed on stamp-papers and to deposit the requisite amount towards security deposit within the stipulated time period, mentioned therein.

2. The petitioner has instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of settlement dated 04.07.2022 and seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to make a fresh settlement order with the 2nd highest bidder or to issue a fresh Tender Notice for settlement of the Market.

3. I have heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6; Mr. J. Handique, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4; and Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his submissions on three aspects. Firstly, he has contended that the uncle of the respondent no. 7, without however disclosing the uncle’s name and details, was a defaulter in the previous term of settlement of the Market and when the respondent no. 7 was found to have participated in the bidding process, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 24.06.2022 before the respondent authorities. It is, thus, the contention of the Mr. Ahmed that the respondent no. 7 ought to have been declared as ineligible to participate in the bidding process for the Market in terms of Clause no. [1] of the Tender Notice. He has further contended that the respondent no. 7 did not deposit 30% of the settlement amount as security deposit with the respondent Anchalik Panchayat within the stipulated time period, which entailed cancellation of the offer of settlement. The respondent no. 7 had also failed to execute a lease deed, as required by the Tender Notice as well as the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 r/w the Assam Panchayat [Financial] Rules, 2002 within 7 [seven] days from the order of settlement. Mr. Ahmed has further contended that the above alleged irregularities were also brought to the notice of the respondent no. 1 by submitting a complaint in writing on 05.08.2022.

5. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department has referred to the statements and averments made in the counter affidavit filed on 09.01.2023 on behalf of the respondent no. 5 in the writ p