Bid submission does not guarantee acceptance; judicial review is warranted only for arbitrary decisions in tender processes.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

This writ petition is preferred to assail an Order of Settlement dated 30.08.2025 whereby a market, ‘Hadurhat Dharmasala Dainik Bazar Dharmasala Part-III’ [‘the Market’, for short] has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 8 at his offered bid value of Rs. 2,35,730/-, disqualifying the bid of the petitioner, who also offered the same bid value of Rs. 2,37,730/-.

2. A Tender Notice was published by Dharmasala Gaon Panchayat on 02.06.2025 inviting bids for settlement of the Market for the Panchayat Year : 2025-2026 for the period from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026. In the Tender Notice, the Government value of the Market was fixed at Rs. 2,14,300/- and the earnest money deposit [EMD] to be deposited by the bidders along with their bids was fixed at 10% of the Government value, that is, @ Rs. 21,430/-.

3. In response to the Tender Notice, eleven nos. of bidders submitted their bids. The petitioner and the respondent no. 8 were among the eleven participant bidders. After opening of the bids, the Bid Evaluation Committee of Dharmasala Gaon Panchayat consisting of the Members of the Development Committee; the President; and the Secretary; examined the bids with regard to the essential documents prescribed in the Tender Notice and the Bidding Document. Upon evaluation of the bids, the Committee accepted the bid of the respondent no. 8 as the valid one for settlement. The bid of the petitioner was not accepted. Thereafter, the Order of Settlement dated 30.08.2025 came to be passed.

4. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 & 7; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2.

5. As per Order dated 11.02.2026 of the Lawazima Court, the other respondents have not entered appearance despite service of notices.

6. Two points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner to contend that the bid of the petitioner ought to have been accepted instead of accepting the bid of the respondent no. 8. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the respondent no. 8 did not submit any Police Verification Report along with his bid and to canvas the point, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Comparative Statement annexed as Annexure-III to the writ petition; and secondly, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 had offered the same bid value, that is, Rs.2,35,730/- and also offered the earnest money in the form of demand draft for the amount of Rs. 21,430/-. But, only the bid of the respondent no. 8 was accepted. The bid of the petitioner was not accepted on the untenable ground that there was mismatch between the name of the bidder and the name of the person reflected in the demand draft.

7. Ms. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department has submitted that neither of the two points urged by the petitioner has merit. The Comparative Statement relied upon the petitioner to supplement his first point was not the final Comparative Statement. The final Comparative Statement was prepared after detail evaluation of the bids and the documents accompanying them by the Members of the Development Committee of the Gaon Panchayat, the President and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, which was the Bid Evaluation Committee. It was in the final Comparative Statement, all of them