Das, J. — On 14.12.87 when this writ petition was posted for admission, a Division Bench of this Court while taking up hearing for admission of the writ, petition, dismissed the same on the ground that there is no merit to interfere with the impugned order. 2. On further consideration of the matter on 15.12.87, the Court suo moto issued Rule on the ground that the petitioner has arguable point in his favour. Thereafter the case was posted for hearing and today it has been taken up for final hearing out of turn as prayed for by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the period of settlement is round the corner and would expire by 30th June, 1988. 3. We have heard Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. C. Barua, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 The petitioner has assailed the appellate order of the Government passed on 22.9.87 in an appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 under section 139(l)(b)of Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972. The dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of Bura-Buri bi-weekly Bazaar in Morigaon Sub-Division for a period of one year commencing from 18.4.87 till the end of June, 1988. A sale notice was issued inviting tenders for such settlement by the authority concerned of Mabakuma Parishad of Morigaon. In pursuance of the sale notice, as many as 12 tenderers offered their bids seeking for settlement of the aforesaid bi-weekly Bazaar, The highest of them is Shri Biseswar Das who offered his bid at Rs. 5851/- and the second highest bidder is the petitioner Shri Sarat Chandra Barman who offered his bid at Rs. 4063.50. The respondent who appears to be in SI. No. 9 of the bid list offered his bid at Rs. 2885/- whereas the lowest bidder Shri Kashinath Roy offered his bid at Rs. 1,685/-. The said Bazaar was ' settled with the highest bidder Shri Biseswar Das at his offered bid at Rs. 5851/- but as Shri Das declined to accept the settlement, the next highest bidder, namely, the petitioner Sarat Chandra Barman was allowed to conduct the Bazaar till final order of settlement is made in his favour. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the kist money within 3 months which he accordingly did within the time bound period. 5851/- but as Shri Das declined to accept the settlement, the next highest bidder, namely, the petitioner Sarat Chandra Barman was allowed to conduct the Bazaar till final order of settlement is made in his favour. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the kist money within 3 months which he accordingly did within the time bound period. This interim order as made in favour of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondant No. 1 to be a sound or just order and as such he preferred an appeal to the State Govt under the provisions of section 138 (1) (b) of Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972. The appellate authority took up the hearing of the matter and by the impugned order not only set aside the interim order of the Mahakuma Parishad which was made in favour of the petitioner but settled the Bazaar with the respondant No. 1 at his bid at Rs. 2885/-per month. This order of the appellate authority has been impugned by the petitioner mainly on two grounds. They are : (1) The reason stated in the impugned order by the appellate authority as regards the principle of settlement of the Bazaar is not a sound principle to reject the highest bidder, and order setting aside the settlement order of the Mahakuma Parishad is arbitrary and malafide. . (2) That the respondent No. I could not have been selected for settlement at his bid. ,4. : Mr.-Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sub­mitted that the reasons set out in the impugned order ,by .the appellate .authority in rejecting the settlement order of the Mahakuma Parishad on the ground of exorbitant hid is not based on sound 'principles of law and is liable to be quashed. On the first point it is (Submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if it appears to the appellate authority that as per sale notice the bid should not be less than Rs. 1000/- and if the bid of the petitioner was treated to be high or exorbitant the order of settlement ought to have been made in favour of the luwast bidder whose bid was at Rs. 1685/-. It was observed by the appellate authority that the bid of the last year was at Rs. 1440/- and as such, the bid offered by the petitioner was found to be excessive and exorbitant. 1685/-. It was observed by the appellate authority that the bid of the last year was at Rs. 1440/- and as such, the bid offered by the petitioner was found to be excessive and exorbitant. If that be the ground to unsettling the petitioner, as submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the appellate authority failed to record any reason as to why the case of the lowest bidder than respondent No. 1 was not considered as eligible for settlement, if in fact, the appellate authority was very much concerned about the economic condition of the local people. This contention of Mr. Ahmed appears to be reasonable as because, the learned appellate authority to consider the individual case of the bidders who offered .their bid ranging from Rs. 5851.50 to the lowest at Rs. 1685/-. It cannot be denied that in some appropriate cases it might so happen that the settling authority may not be bound to accept the highest bid but a cogent reason .must - be recorded in not doing so. Therefore, it" any particular offer or bid is regarded as exorbitant or reckless, a sound reason must be ^recorded in rejecting the offer of the highest bidder .so that the 'highest bidder may know what would .be the norm to consider an offer as reckless or exorbitant. In the impugned order such reason 'does not appear. The reckless bid is surely unreasonable and may not be accepted by the settling authority but in case of the petitioner the bid was considered, by the Mahakuma Parishad and compared the same in the light of the economic condition of the local people. This we have said so as because the primary settling authority is the best judge to consider the aforesaid aspect, of the matter while settling the market and/or, Bazaar, as the case maybe. Therefore, the initial order of settlement should not be lightly set aside without a strong and cogent reason to do so. Each and every' highest bid cannot be termed as reckless and exorbitant. It must be compared with the situation prevailing at the time of settlement. In our opinion, the offer of the petitioner may be high in comparison to the last year's bid but it cannot be said reckless and exorbitant in the present rising of price level trend of the commodities. It must be compared with the situation prevailing at the time of settlement. In our opinion, the offer of the petitioner may be high in comparison to the last year's bid but it cannot be said reckless and exorbitant in the present rising of price level trend of the commodities. In case of settlement and more particularly when it i& offered by calling tenders, as per terms and conditions of the tender notice and/or sale notice, there should not be pick and choose method to avoid arbitrariness. The question of settlement of Bazaar§, fisheries etc, is for the public purpose which has great concern with the public of the locality and any deviation from the policy without any reasonable cause would not only be the cause of harassment of the people bat it would be injustice to all who are interested in such settlement. The next submission of Mr. Ahmed is that the order of settlement in. favour of the petitioner was not a final order but a temporary measure and interim arrangement till final order of settlement is made by the Mahakuma Parisad. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appellate authority ought not to have entertained the appeal and settle the Bazaar in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioner deposited some amount of kist money as directed to do so by the settling authority. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel this aspect of the matter should also have been considered by the appellate authority while setting aside the initial order of settlement by the Mahakuma Parisad in favour of respondent No. 1. 5. We have also heard Mr. C. Barua, the learned counsel for the respondents who has submitted that the appellate order in settling the market/Bazaar in favour of respondent No. 1 may not be disturbed at this stage as the period of settlement is going to be over by June, 1988. It is true that normally the Court does not interfere with the order of settlement towards the close of settlement period but if there appears to be a glaring error or mistake in the order of settlement the Court takes note of it and may pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice. It is true that normally the Court does not interfere with the order of settlement towards the close of settlement period but if there appears to be a glaring error or mistake in the order of settlement the Court takes note of it and may pass an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice. We have observed that in order to hold the initial order of settlement unlawful or bad in law, the appellate authority must record the reason to unsettle the settlement holder. In the present case .We are unable to find any such cogent reason to hold that the order of settlement of Mahakuma Parisad in favour of the petitioner was bad and is liable to be set aside on the ground that his bid was reckless. Unless a comparative statement is drawn up and considered relating to the offer of the individual bidders and to discard the highest bid on the ground of reckless or exorbitant, a cogent reason to hold the same as reckless or exorbitant must be recorded. We are, therefore, unable to justify the impugned order of the appellate authority in setting aside the initial order of the Mahakuma Parisad with regard to the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. We also take note of the present position that the settlement is round the corner and will be over by June, 1988. On perusal of the impugned order of the appellate authority and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the appellate authority being not based on sound reason the same cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the order dated 22, 9. 87 of the appellate authority in settling the Bazaar with respondent No. 1. 6. In the result the petition is allowed but under the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 7. We accordingly quash the order dated 22, 9. 87 of the appellate authority in settling the Bazaar with respondent No. 1. 6. In the result the petition is allowed but under the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 7. As we have observed that the period of settlement would be over by expiry of June, 1988, we allow liberty to the Mahakuma Parisad to re-adveitise for settlement of the Bazaar for the remain­ing period and, if in case, it would not be feasible and convenient to give a short time settlement, in that event it will be open for the Mahakuma Parisad to manage the Bazaar through their agent for the remaining period till a fresh sale notice is issued for settlement of the aforesaid Bazaar after the period is over.