Pathak, C.J. (Actg.):- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is projected against the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority passed on 22.1.82. 2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the present petition is that the Mahkuma Parishad of Tezpur invited tenders for about 59 huts weekly market for settlement for 1981 82. Of these huts Dekorai Weekly Bazar was one of them in which in pursuance to the notice calling for fenders 6 parsons sub­mitted tenders giving bid as follows : 1. Dikaram Hazarika ... Rs. 75,331.00 2. Nripen Bordoloi .. Rs. 71,001.00 (the present respondent No. 5) 3. Uttam Kumar Bordoloi .. Rs. 64,644.44 4. Durga Gohain ... Rs. 65,00100 5. Ajit Kr. Barmudoi Rs. 61,446.00 6. M/S. United Enterprises ... Rs. 77,201.00 3. On opening the tenders and making the comparative state­ment of the tenders, the Executive Committee of the Mahkuma Parishad settled the aforesaid hut with the present petitioner at Ms. 64,444.44 although his own bid wis Rs. 61,446.00 as men­tioned above. 4. The respondent No. 5 Nripjo Birdjloi, Dakaram Hazarika and M./S. United enterprise preferred appeal before the appellate authority. But during the pendency of the appeal only Respon­dent No. 5 filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the stay order granted by the appellate authority. This Court dis­posed of the petition with a direction to dispose of the appeal, of the Respondent No. 5 as a revision. The other two appe­llants did not contest before the appellate authority. The appellate authority the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Community Development Department who on consideration of all the material before it came to the conclu­sion that the order of settlement made with the petitioner was not valid and accordingly the order of settlement was not set aside and settlement was directed to be given in favour of Respondent No. 5. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the revisional authority has preferred this present petition. 6. Mr. D.K. Talukdar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes only the following submission. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the revisional authority has preferred this present petition. 6. Mr. D.K. Talukdar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner makes only the following submission. He sub­mits that revisional authority which disposed of the appeal petition filed by Respondent No. 5 way not competent to hear and dispose of the revision petition, inasmuch as that authority was not conferred with the power and jurisdiction under Section 138(2) of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972 by the State Government, to hear and dispose of a revision petition. The next submission of the learned counsel is that the revisional authority even assuming had the jurisdiction did not consider the case of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 in its proper perspective on the materials before it and as such the impug­ned order is bad in law. 7. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that ques­tion of jurisdiction of the authority was never agitated. If it would have done it would have reflected in the Impugned order. It is further submitted that the conation raised here in this petition cannot be taken into consideration. There is no dispute that Deputy Secretary who passed the impugned order has the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of appeal, if the non-confer­ment of jurisdiction would have been questioned, that would have been decided in the impugned order itself. The further submission of Respondent's counsel is that there is HO infirmity in the impugned order. The authority passed the order on con­sideration of all the' materials found on the records. 8. The entire scope and jurisdiction of Mahkuma Parishad for the settlement of hut (bazar) is encapsulate in Rule 28 of the Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, 1972. 9. The further submission of Respondent's counsel is that there is HO infirmity in the impugned order. The authority passed the order on con­sideration of all the' materials found on the records. 8. The entire scope and jurisdiction of Mahkuma Parishad for the settlement of hut (bazar) is encapsulate in Rule 28 of the Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, 1972. 9. The recant provisions of the said rules read as follows :- (1) Sealed tenders affixing Court-Fee Stamps of (five) only for sale of the right to collect the authorised fees in respect of any hut for one year, shall be invited by public notice to be given at least thirty days before the date from which the lease of such hut is to take effect: Provided that the Executive Committee of the Mahkuma Parishad in a meeting may, if things fit, portion out any shop, house or bazar betty of a hut for letting out on to yearly rental basis separately at such rate as may be fixed from time to time. (2) (a) The public notice referred to in the preceding rule shall be given by the Chief Executive Councilor of the Mahkuma Parishad concerned and shall state- (i) the name and location of each hut to be leased; (ii) the number of shop, house or bazar bhetis, if any, excluded from the sale of any hut. (2) (a) The public notice referred to in the preceding rule shall be given by the Chief Executive Councilor of the Mahkuma Parishad concerned and shall state- (i) the name and location of each hut to be leased; (ii) the number of shop, house or bazar bhetis, if any, excluded from the sale of any hut. (iii) the last date and place of receiving thy tenders, such date befog not less than fifteen cays after issuing the notice; (iv) the officer by whom the tenders will be received; (v) the term for which the lease will be given; and (vi) the condition, viz, that the selected tenders shall have to deposit with the Secretary of the Mahkuma Parishad, not less than twenty-five per centum on his quoted amount in the tender for one year and to accept duly stamped lease jointly with one of more sureties to the satisfaction of the Secretary Mahkuma Parishad within seven days from the date of issuing acceptance letter in respect of his tender, that the lessee shall be required to pay the stamp duty OB leases and mortgage bonds (unless the Executive Committee of the Mohkuma Parishad has otherwise directed) and any other special conditions that the Executive Committee may impose for any particular hut : Provided that if the Executive Committee so directs, the Secretary of the Mahkuma Parishad may in lieu of sureties accept as security the quoted amount for immovable property or promissory notes not less in value than for one year, which shall be given in addition to the security deposit as menti­oned above in this sub-rule. The form of mortgage bond of immovable property shall be as provided in Schedule 'B' annexed to these rules; (vii) the date on which the installments of the purchase money shall have to be paid; (viii) the minimum amount below which the hut will not be settled. In determining the minimum amount the Chief Executive Councilor shall cause to be prepared an estimate of probable receipts and expenditure of the hut and fix the minimum amount with the approval by the Executive Committee. (3) A copy of the notice shall be hung up within the view of the public in the office of the Mahkuma Parishad and a copy shall also be posted at a conspicuous place at or in the vicinity of the hut to be leased. (3) A copy of the notice shall be hung up within the view of the public in the office of the Mahkuma Parishad and a copy shall also be posted at a conspicuous place at or in the vicinity of the hut to be leased. Notices shall also be sent to the Block Offices in the Sub-division for displaying in their notice boards. (4) After preparation of the comparative statements under rule (3), above, the Chief Executive Councillor shall place such statement along with the tenders before a meeting of the Executive Committee to be convened for the purpose of selecting the suitable tenderers. The Executive Committee shall have the right to reject any tender at their discretion on any reasonable ground recording the ground for such rejection in writing. (Emphasis given ) (6) The person whose tender is accepted by the Execu­tive Committee shall immediately after the late of issue in the acceptance letter under the rule 5 above and no later than seven days thereafter, deposit with the Secretary, Mahkuma Parishad, not less than twenty five per centum of his quoted amount in his tender for one year, as security and to accept a duly stamped lease in the form set out in the Schedule 'C' annexed to these rules. The Mahkuma Parishad shall provide the forms of lease and shall arrange for necessary stamp papers. If the purchaser fails to make the required deposit or to accept the lease within the period mentioned above then the Executive Committee may either select another ten­derer, if any, agreeable to accept the lease at that bid or order for Inviting fresh tender forthwith. 10. On a perusal of the rule noticed above, it becomes clear that the settling authority, namely, the Executive Committee of The Mahkuma Parish id is to settle a hut within the ambit of the provisions laid down in Rule 28. The question of selec­tion of the tenderer for settlement will have to be done by the Executive Committee in conformity with the rule itself. When certain tenders are rejected, the Committee is to give reasonable reasons for rejecting such tenders. Unfortunately in this petition we do not find the order of the settlement made by the Exe­cutive Committee annexed to the petition. When certain tenders are rejected, the Committee is to give reasonable reasons for rejecting such tenders. Unfortunately in this petition we do not find the order of the settlement made by the Exe­cutive Committee annexed to the petition. However, we have gathered from the impugned order passed by the revisional authority that settlement was made with the petitioner without assigning any reason as to why the tender of Respondent No. 5 which was much higher than that of the petitioner, was rejec­ted. Further the settlement of the hut was made on the basis of some bid given not by him in his tender but given in higher bid in another tender. It is noticed by the revisional authority as follows : "After perusal of the records it is seen that the peti­tioner Sri Nripea Bordoloi (present respdt. No 5). was the highest tenderer in the field after rejection of two higher tenderers. Sri Ajit Bormudoi (present petitioner) is the lowest tenderer and the bazar has been settled with him not at his bid but at the bid amount offered by his brother, Sri Uttam Kr. Bormudoi which was the next lowest tender. Thus Sri Ajit Bormudoi was allowed to take settlement of the bazar not at the highest bid but at a bid only a slightly higher thin his own lowest feed." The learn counsel for the petitioner tries to substantiate his submission that merely because the settlement was made at the bid of another tenderer that by itself would not make the settlement rivaled and vitiated. In that context the learned counsel refers to sub-rule (6) of Rule 28 of the Rules. On a bare reading of sub-rule (6) it appears that if a settlement is made with some tenderer and that tenderer is not in a position to take the settlement, then the Executive Committee may offer the settlement with another tenderer at the bid given by that ten­derer with whom Initially settlement was made. Bat here this is not the case and therefore the provisions of the said sub-rule does not have any application to the case in hand. 11. It has been pointed out by Mr. Bora as well as by Mr. D. N. Konwar, learned counsel on behalf of the respon­dents that the invalidity of the question of settlement at the bid of another is no lingerers Integra. 11. It has been pointed out by Mr. Bora as well as by Mr. D. N. Konwar, learned counsel on behalf of the respon­dents that the invalidity of the question of settlement at the bid of another is no lingerers Integra. In that context, the learned counsel refers to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 269/77'-Lalit Saikia vs. State of Assam in which one of us (Pathak, J.) (as he then was) had an occasion to deal with this question. There it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 (with whom the settlement was made) was allowed to increase his bid which was not his bid given in the tender and thereby the settling authority over-stepped its power which is contrary to the deci­sion in Mnnoranjan Paul's case of this court and reported in AIR 1970 Assam and Nagaland 142, Dealing with this ques­tion the Division Bench held as follows :- "From the order of the Executive Committee as well as of the appellate authority it is found that the Respondent No. 5 was allowed to raise his bid to Rs. 38,110.00 which was not his bid. It smacks of some arbitrariness on the part of the settling authority because it is destructive of the very procedure of settlement being made on the basis of sealed tender as provided under Rule 2s. If the reasons for which the Executive Committee as well as the appellate authority's order could not stand in view of violation of clause 10 of the sale notice which we have described above, the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 stood in She same position. Hence, the settling authority was not entitled to raise the bid of responded No. 5 behind the back of the petitioner in view of the decision on Monoranjan Paul's cases reported in AIR 1970 Assam and Nagaland 142 (supra)." 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we find that the initial order of the settling authority was vitiated as it failed to conform to the provisions of the rules contains in Rule 28 and the law laid dawn by this Court. 13. We have very carefully gone through the revesional order. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we find that the initial order of the settling authority was vitiated as it failed to conform to the provisions of the rules contains in Rule 28 and the law laid dawn by this Court. 13. We have very carefully gone through the revesional order. We feel that was are not coiled upon to express our opinion on the question of the jurisdiction of the revisions authority in hearing and disposing the matter inasmuch as such question does not appear to have engaged The mind of the authority in passing the impugned order. As such we are to hold that the Deputy Secretary exercised jurisdiction competently. 14. On the other hand the order of settlement by the impugned order with the Respondent No. 5 also cannot be said to be sound. The non-fulfillment of the condition of the tender notice to the effect that the land valuation was submitted as given by the S. D. C. and not by D. C. as required under the condition of the sale notice; that the Dag No. given in the certificate issued by the S. D. C. does not tally with the Janaabandi, have not been properly gone into by the appellate authority. The authority has not given any finding as to whether such defects can be said to invalidate his tender. Further merely because the Respondent NX 5 gave in writing in an unsigned paper that he was agreeable to pay in cash would not make his tender valid, if it was otherwise invalid. The authority should have given a scrutinizing finding on these important aspects which is not found. Therefore, we are of firm opinion that the direction by the impugned order to settle the hut with Respondent No, 5 cannot be said to be correct. 15. Moreover the period of settlement is going to be over by the 30th June, 1982. So there is lordly any time to stets the hut for this short period with anybody else. Hence till the next settlement of the hut by the Mihkuma Parishad, it may be run by the Mahkuma Parishad itself, if it so fables meet and expedient. 16. In the result, the petition is rejected and Rule is discharged and the stay order granted by this Court stands vacated. There is no order as to cost.