In matters of tender settlement, the fulfillment of tender conditions and the reasonableness of the decision are crucial factors for judicial review.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Shri M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department who has also produced the records in original.

2. As regards the respondent no. 6, there is an order dated 16.11.2023 of the learned Lawazima Court regarding completion of service upon the said respondent no. 6 and the same is accepted. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit dated 20.09.2023 in support of the dasti service. The respondent no. 6 has chosen not to contest this writ petition.

3. The issue raised is with regard to the settlement of Kawripather Weekly Market under the Chaiduar Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Sonitpur.

4. An NIT was floated on 10.05.2023 by the Chaiduar Anchalik Panchayat for various settlement including that of Kawripather Weekly Market. The period in question was from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024.

5. In the said process, as per the petitioner, six nos. of bidders had participated including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. While it is submitted that the petitioner had furnished all the documents and offered a bid amount of Rs.10,40,000/-so far as the respondent no. 6 is concerned, the documents were not in accordance with the requirement and the offer by the said respondent no. 6 was also less being Rs.7,99,999.99. However, vide the impugned order of settlement dated 07.08.2023, the settlement has been granted in favour of the respondent no. 6.

6. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, apart from the fact that the price offered by the respondent no. 6 is less than that of the petitioner, the said respondent no. 6 does not fulfill the requirements of the tender conditions. Specific reference has been made to Clauses 9 and 13 of the tender document as per which, a bidder is required to be a resident of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat and has to furnish Tax Clearance Certificate from the Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. He submits that from a bare perusal of the comparative statement annexed to the writ petition, it would reveal that the bid of the respondent no. 6, apart from being lower in price would also show that Tax Clearance Certificate is from a Nagar Samity which would mean that the respondent no. 6 is not a resident of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat.

7. Per contra, Shri Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel of the Department, by producing the records in original has however submitted that the comparative statement annexed in the writ petition is not a complete one and there are not six but in total eight numbers of bidders. He further submits that the petitioner himself was lacking in fulfilling certain requirements of the tender pertaining to submission of documents. He further submits that the bid of the respondent no. 6 is the valid highest bid and therefore, the order dated 07.08.2023 has been issued in his favour.

8. The rival contentions have been considered and the records in original produced before this Court have been carefully perused.

9. The records contain two comparative statements – one prepared by the Zilla Parishad and one prepared by the Anchalik Panchayat. In the comparative statement prepared by the Anchalik Panchayat, though in certain columns pertaining to documents, there is blank so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are blanks in many columns so far as the respondent no. 6 is concerned. Further, there is no dispute with the two main allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the difference in price as well as furnishing of tax clearance from the appropriate authority. The records reveal that so far as Tax Clearance Certificate is concerned, the petitioner has furnished such certificate from the concerned Gaon Panchayat whereas the respondent no. 6 has furnished Certificate from the Nagar Samity.

10. In the reasons assigned to support the impugned decision, the Anchalik Panchayat has recorded that the bid of the petitioner was lacking in documents a