The court emphasized the importance of just and fair decision-making in the context of tender settlements, considering the substantial difference in financial bids and the defects in the bid of the respondent no. 5.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD. Shri A.M. Khan, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 5.

2. Both the Department as well as the respondent no. 5 have filed affidavit-in-oppositions and the petitioner has also filed rejoinders.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances which includes the aspect of settlement of a market for a period of 1 year and as agreed to by the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. The case projected is that the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Barpeta had published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 03.05.2023 for settlement of various markets/parghat etc. including the Milijuli Market. The term of the settlement was for a period of 1 year ending on 30.06.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that he being the previous lessee had participated in the same process by submitting all necessary documents. The respondent no. 5 was also one of the bidders. It is however the case of the petitioner that while the bids submitted by the petitioner was valid in all respects, the bid of the respondent no. 5 was defective. In this regard, Shri Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the comparative statement prepared for evaluation of the bids of the various bidders has submitted that while all the columns in the comparative statement pertaining to the bid of the petitioner has been held to be submitted, many of the columns for the bid of the respondent no. 5 has stated that such requirements were not fulfilled by the respondent no. 5.

5. Be that as it may, on opening of the financial bids, it was found that the bid of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.9,21,102/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Two) only was the highest. The financial bid of the respondent no. 5 was however Rs.8,11,905/-(Rupees Eight Lakh Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Five) which is apparently substantially lower than that of the petitioner.

6. On 06.07.2023, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the authorities communicating the acceptance of his offer. It is the case of the petitioner that such notice was received by him on 10.07.2023 and since he was suffering from illness, on 15.07.2023 he had gone to the office to deposit the kist money. On such approach, the petitioner was informed that on 14.07.2023, a notice was issued to the respondent no. 5 regarding acceptance of the bid of the respondent no. 5 and subsequently, on 19.07.2023, the settlement order was issued to him.

7. Shri Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that in the affidavit filed by the Department, it has been contended that the notice of acceptance dated 06.07.2023 was received by the wife of the petitioner on the same date. He submits that though the aforesaid statement may be a matter of fact, the assertion that the petitioner was unwell has been wholly ignored and rather in the impugned resolution, it has been stated that no reasons have been cited for the delay in deposit. It is further submitted that so far as the documents are concerned, the guarantor of the petitioner had deposited all such documents on 07.07.2023 and therefore there was no default. It is otherwise submitted that along with the bid, all documents were submitted which is demonstrated by the comparative statement itself. He further submits that the impugned action of not allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount and making the settlement in favour of the respondent no. 5 is wholly unsustainable for more than one reason. He firstly contends that admittedly, the bid of the respondent no. 5 was a defective bid and therefore such offer could not have been given to the respondent no. 5. Secondly, he submits that from the information and documents gathered, the respondent no. 5 could submit a document after 10 days which is beyond the period permitted by the terms of the tender. Thirdly, he contends that the