Point of Law : Process of settlement resulting into the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 9 is found to be arbitrary and irrational one.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the action on the part of the Barpathar Municipal Board authorities in settling a market viz. ‘Barpathar Weekly Market’ [‘the Market’, for short] in favour of the respondent no. 9 interaliaon the ground that the bid of the petitioner was found to be a valid and higher one than that of the respondent no. 9. The petitioner has challenged an order of settlement dated 28.03.2023 issued under the hand of the Chairman, Barpathar Municipal Board whereby the Market has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 9 for the year : 2023-2024.

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

2.1 A Tender Notice dated 02.03.2023 [‘Tender Notice’, for short] for settlement of 3 [three] nos. of markets and 1 [one] parking place which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent Barpathar Municipal Board, was published by the Barpathar Municipal Board inviting sealed bids from intending bidders. By the Tender Notice, it was notified that the last date of submission of bids was fixed up-to 01-00 p.m., 13.03.2023. One of the markets sought to be settled by the bidding process initiated by the Tender Notice dated 02.03.2023 was ‘Barpathar Weekly Market’ [‘the Market’], with the Government fixed value of Rs. 7,00,000/-.

2.2 It is an admitted position, as revealed from the records of settlement as well as from the Comparative Statement prepared after opening of the bids, that in response to the Tender Notice for settlement of Barpathar Weekly Market [‘the Market’], a total of 8 [eight] nos. of bids were received from the bidders quoting different bid values. The bid values, in descending order, quoted by the 8 [eight] nos. of bidders were as under :-

2.3 When the respondent Municipal Board issued the order of settlement dated 12.03.2023 settling the Market in favour of the respondent no. 9 at his offered bid value of Rs. 8,51,000/-, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition challenging the said action on the part of the respondent Municipal authorities.

3. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 – 6; Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7; Ms. M. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8; and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.

4. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing attention to the Comparative Statement prepared by the respondent Municipal Board authorities, has submitted that the Bid Evaluation Committee [BEC] had recorded its remarks in the said Comparative Statement as regards submission or non-submission of requisite documents by each of the participant bidder as per the list indicated in the Tender Notice. He has contended that in so far as the bid of the petitioner is concerned, the Comparative Statement had clearly indicated that the petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents in compliance of the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st highest bidder [the respondent no. 7] and the 2nd highe