The decision to settle a market must be based on fair treatment of bidders and relevant commercial factors, and changing the goalpost during the bidding process is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail an order of settlement dated 02.08.2023 whereby the respondent Bodoland Territorial Council [BTC] authorities have allowed the respondent no. 4 go ahead for collection of tolls, etc. from a market named Puthimari Weekly Market w.e.f. 01.07.2023 till issue of regular settlement order.

2. I have heard Mr. D. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.R. Rabha, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent nos. 1 – 3; and Mr. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

3. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. By publishing a Tender Notice dated 27.06.2023, the Block Development Officer, Kalaigaon, Udalguri [‘the respondent no. 3] invited bids for settlement of 10 [ten] nos. of markets including the market named Puthimari Weekly Market, for the year : 2023-2024, that is, from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024. In response to the Tender Notice, 6 [six] nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, submitted their bids for Puthimari Weekly Market [‘the Market’ for short]. After opening and scrutiny of the bids, a Comparative Statement was prepared by the Settlement Committee constituted for the purpose, recording remarks about the responsiveness or otherwise of the bids vis-à-vis the documents required to be submitted along with the bid as per the Tender Notice.

4. As per the Comparative Statement prepared by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner’s bid was found responsive in all aspects. The petitioner offered the 2nd highest bid value of Rs. 5,92,100/-whereas the respondent no. 4 had offered the 3rd highest bid value of Rs. 4,55,100/-. The bid of the respondent no. 4 was also found responsive to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice dated 27.06.2023. The highest bidder offered a bid value of Rs. 7,90,200/-but his bid was found non-compliant to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice dated 27.06.2023 as he did not submit land revenue receipt, GST Certificate, etc. As a result, the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder in respect of the bidding process initiated for the settlement of market named Puthimari Weekly Market.

5. When the respondent authorities had settled the Market in favour of the respondent no. 4 by order of settlement dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition to challenge the order of settlement dated 02.08.2023 with the further prayer for a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the market, Puthimari Weekly Market in his favour at his offered bid value of Rs. 5,92,100/-.

6. When the writ petition was moved on 30.08.2023, this Court while issuing the notices to the respondents, had asked the learned Standing Counsel, BTC to make endeavour to produce either the relevant records of settlement leading to the decision to settle the Market in favour of the respondent no. 4 or to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent BTC authorities traversing the contentions made in the writ petition. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent BTC authorities, Mr. Rabha, learned Standing Counsel, BTC authorities has produced the relevant records of settlement.

7. The records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, BTC includes the Minutes of a Meeting of the Market Settlement Committee, Market & Fairs Department, BTC which was held on 26.06.2023 for the purpose of discussing about the settlement of the markets/hats/go-hats/par-ghats/bus parkings, etc. for the year : 2023-2024 in the BTC. From the Minutes of the said Meeting, it is revealed that the Market Settlement Committee took a resolution to the effect that if the offered bid value for a market/hat/go-hat/par-ghat/bus parking, etc. was either less than the scheduled rate or more than three times the scheduled rate, fixed for the market/hat/go-hat/par-ghat/bus parking, etc., then such bids would be rejected. Another resolution was take