A bid submitted above the permissible limit set by tender requirements is invalid if it fails to comply with mandatory documentation requirements.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. N. Borah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.5 in spite of service of notice.

2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the grant of settlement of the Nilambazar Market in favour of the Respondent No.5 for the year 2025-26 vide the communication dated 12.09.2025.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The facts of the instant case as it appears from the materials on record are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 10.05.2025 by the President, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad for settlement of the Nilambazar Market. The Government value of the said Nilambazar Market has been put at Rs.13,20,000/-. It is the mandate of Clause 12 of the said Notice Inviting Tender that the settlement value should not exceed 10% of the average settled value of the last three years of these haats/ghats/fisheries/pounds etc.

4. Pursuant to the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender, the Respondent No.3 issued a General Notice dated 03.07.2025 whereby the Government value of the Nilambazar Market which was put at Rs.13,20,000/- in the Notice Inviting Tender was increased to Rs.16,04,370/- and the Earnest Money was also re-fixed at 10% of the re-fixed value.

5. The Petitioner thereupon submitted his bid along with four other bidders. The Respondent No.5 had quoted Rs.21,04,300/- whereas the other four bidders quoted Rs.17,64,807/-. It is the case of the Petitioner that the bid so submitted by the Respondent No.5 was in violation to Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.05.2025 as well as Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025. It was also the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.5 failed to comply with Clauses 1, 15, 16 and 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.05.2025 but the Respondent No.3 vide a letter dated 11.09.2025 allowed three days time to the Respondent No.5 to submit the required documents which was not permissible under law. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner therefore has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. This Court vide an order dated 25.09.2025 issued notice but was not inclined to pass any interim directions. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the stand so taken is that it is a fact that the Nilambazar Market have been settled for the year 2025-26 with the bid value of Rs.21,04,300/- in favour of the Respondent No.5 as per the decision taken by the General Standing Committee of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad in the meeting dated 11.09.2025. It was further mentioned that the Chief Executive Officer, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad i.e. the Respondent No.3 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender for the settlement of the Nilambazar Market dated 10.05.2025 for the year 2025-26 and in response to the Notice Inviting Tender, several bidders have submitted their tenders including the Petitioner. Amongst the five tenderers, the Respondent No.5 offered the highest bid. It was further stated that on 11.09.2025, the General Standing Committee held the meeting in the conference hall of Sribhumi Zilla Parishad in connection with the settlement of the Nilambazar Market for the year 2025-26. The meeting was presided over by the Chairman, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee. The said Committee reviewed all the tender documents and also the comparative statements so submitted and found that out of the five bidders, the b