with the respondent No.7 by the State respondents has been based on a Cabinet decision dated 27.06.2024, made in respect of markets/bazars/hats/ghats etc. under the Zila Parishads, Anchalik Panchayats and Gaon Panchayats, wherein it has been held that a bidder can quote a maximum of 10% above the Government value/reserve price for the markets/bazars/hats/ghats etc. and any bid above 10% of the Government value would not be accepted.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner along with others had submitted their bids for the Dhing Bazar, pursuant to the NIT dated 24.01.2025. In the NIT, no condition has been stipulated, which states that a bidder cannot bid higher than 10% of the Government value fixed for the Bazar. Further, the Cabinet decision which restricts submission of a bid beyond 10% of the Government value of a bazar, has been made only with regard to the bazars being run by the Panchayat Department and not in respect of the Dhing Bazar, which is run under the Municipal Administration Department.

5. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Panchayat Department’s decision to incorporate the Cabinet decision, restricting the bids of tenderers to 10% of the Government value of the bazaars, besides not being applicable to the Municipal Administration Department, the same was to be incorporated in the Notice Inviting Tenders of the Panchayat Department only. There is no incorporation of the Cabinet decision in the present NIT dated 24.01.2025. He also submits that the petitioner has not made any written averment in the writ petition with regard to the pre-bid meeting that had been held between the tenderers and the State respondents on 11.03.2025, in relation to the NIT dated 24.01.2025, wherein there was a discussion whether there should be an extension of the last date of submission of tenders in relation to the NIT dated 24.01.2025., as the same was objected by many of the bidders, which resulted in there being no extension of the last date for submission of bids of the tenderers. The petitioner’s counsel submits that there was no discussion in the pre-bid meeting, for restricting the bids of tenderers to

10% of the Government value of the bazar.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the State respondents have a right not to select the highest bidder, reasons have to be provided for not selecting the highest bidder. In the present case, the petitioner’s bid was the second highest (H2), while the bid of the respondent No.7 was seventh highest (H7). As such, the State respondents should have given justifiable reasons for not awarding the settlement of the bazar to those persons, whose bids were th higher, instead of settling the same with the 7 highest bidder. He submits that though the petitioner’s bid is Rs.1,23,53,000/-, as against the respondent No.7’s bid of Rs.80,93,911/-, the petitioner, if selected, would have been duty bound to collect toll/taxes in terms of the prescribed rates fixed by the Dhing Municipal Board, as provided in Clause 9 of the NIT. He submits that as the reserve price/Government value of the Dhing Bazar was Rs.73,60,000/-, more revenue would flow into the Government coffers if the petitioner or H1 had been selected, which would be in public interest.

7. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that if the restrictions on the bids of tenderers were discussed in the pre-bid meeting, the tenderers, including the petitioner, would not have submitted bids beyond the 10% limit provided for by the Cabinet decision on 27.06.2025. However, as no discussion with regard to bids beyond 10% of the Government value not being considered, having been made at the pre-bid meeting, several tenderers had submitted bids beyond 10% of the Government value of the bazar. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that no written meeting minutes of the pre-bid meeting held on 11.03.2025 has been made by the State respondents, to show that the tenderers were to restrict their bids