Phukan, J. — In response to a notice issued by the Mahkuma Parishad, Nagaon for the settlement of Singia Bi-weekly Bazaar for the year 1987-88 commencing from 1st July, 1987, the present petitioner along with six other persons submitted tender. The highest bid money was Rs. 5,555.00 and the second highest was that of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,939.00. But the Mahkuma Paris bad settled the Bazaar in question with respondent No. 3 whose offer was Rs. 3,199.00. The offer of the present petitioner along with the highest offer of Md. Azimuddin was rejected on the ground of "excessive". By the order dated 16th September, 1957 the appellate authority namely the State Government rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that there was no violation of the relevant rules as the Mahkuma Parishad recorded reasons for rejection. Hence the present petition. 2. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the orders of settlement and of the appellate authority are liable to be set-aside on the ground that sufficient reasons as required under, sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules 1973, for short the Rules, were not recorded. In support Mr. Das has placed reliance in Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 3 SCC. 267 ; Dilbahadiir Karki Chctri vs. State of Assam and others, (1985i2GLR, 309 and Hemkanta Saikia, vs. State of Assam and others ; (1987) I GLR 206. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 has submitted that as the Mahkuma Parishad found the bid of the present petitioner 'excessive'. and rejected the tender on that ground, there was sufficient compli­ance of sub-rub (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules. Further, according to Mr. De, as the period of lease, which was for one year is going to expire after 2 months, if any writ is issued it will be infructuous and as such this Court may not interfere with the settlement order. 3. Mr. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate has supported the contention of Mr. De, and urged that as the appellate authority on the basis of facts available, found the settlement to be in order, this Court may not interfere at this stage. Mr. 3. Mr. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate has supported the contention of Mr. De, and urged that as the appellate authority on the basis of facts available, found the settlement to be in order, this Court may not interfere at this stage. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has however, submitted that this Court may lay down proper guide line for exercising power by the Mahkuma Parishad under sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules regarding rejection of highest bid so that in future parties may not spend their time and energy by agitating before the appellate authority and as well as before this Court against the settlement order of the Mahkuma Parishad. Mr. Chaliha, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that this Court, if it found necessary, may explain and lay down guide line as submitted by Mr. Das. 4. By an order dated 9.3.88 the Division Bench of this Court wanted to know the views of the State Government through the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate as to whether while inviting tender for settlement of Bazaars the local authorities should, not only fix the mini­mum rate on which the settlement would be given, but should also in­dicate the maximum which would be acceptable to the settling authority. On the question Mr. Chaliha, on instructions, has submitted that it would not be practicable to lay down any rule directing the Mahkuma Parishad to fix the maximum rate for settlement of Bazaar. Learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. De, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 accept the contention of Mr. Chaliha and as such we need not enter into this aspect, as this is a question of policy of the State. However, we hope and trust that the State Government would re-examine the relevant rules keeping in view the law already laid down by this Court and the views which we propose to express in the present petition. 5. In Dil Bahadur Chetri ( Supra ) the Mahkuma Parishad by a stroke of pen held that the offer made by the party was reckless. This Court observed that to hold actions of a person as reckless and to disqualify him needs strong and cogent reasons. In Hemkanta Saikia ( Supra ) the tender was rejected on the ground of 'exhorbitant bid. This Court observed that to hold actions of a person as reckless and to disqualify him needs strong and cogent reasons. In Hemkanta Saikia ( Supra ) the tender was rejected on the ground of 'exhorbitant bid. The Court examined the meaning of the words 'exhorbitant and 'excessive' and after considering all the bids held that the bid was not exhorbitant and as such rejection of the tender was apt proper. The Court observed "The rejection of the bids raising from Rs.-6.551/- to Rs. 10,125/- smacks of indifference of the Parishad towards raising revenue". 6 Mr. Das has drawn our attention to the observation of their Lord­ships made in para 12 of the report in Ram and Shyam Co. ( Supra ) wherein it was held that the 'disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal there should b« nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at the best price go that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the State Administra­tion would serve public purpose viz. the welfare State may be able to expand its beneficient activities by the availability of large funds." It was also held that above principle is subject to one important limitation that socialist property may be disposed at a price lower than the market price or even for a token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recognised public purpose,' one such being to achieve the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution but where disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available in a market economy. 7. In Kasturi Lai Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of J. & K. ( 1980 ) 4 SCC I, their Lordships held that Government cannot give a contract or sell or lease out its property for consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. 8. Chapter V of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1986 provides for finance and property of Gaon Panchayat and Mahkuma Parish ad. 8. Chapter V of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1986 provides for finance and property of Gaon Panchayat and Mahkuma Parish ad. From reading the provision of the Act more particularly section 73 we are of the opinion that legislature has given power to the above authorities to settle Bazaars/Hats for the purpose of augmentation of revenue and nothing else and as such the Mahkuma Parishad it under a legal obligation to secure the best price available while settling such Bazaars or Hats. 9. Keeping in view the above law, sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules has been framed and the said sub-rule runs as follows :- '(4) After preparation of the comparative statement under Sub-R. (3) above, the Chief Executive Councilor 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 tenders. 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.” From the provisions of the above Rule and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that while settling Bazaars/hats the Executive Committee of the Mahkuma Parishad has got power to reject any tender but in doing so the Executive Committee shall have to record sufficient and cogent reasons. We are further of the opinion that the Mahkuma Parishad is under a legal obligation to settle such Bazaars/bats with the highest bidder ; however, such bid may be rejected if there are other reasonable considerations and in public interest. 10. In the present petition three tenders were rejected on the ground that the bid was "excessive". The question is whether merely by recording that the bid was excessive the tender can be rejected. Under sub-rule (4) of rule 28 of the Rules the Executive Committee has to record the ground of rejection. In our opinion such ground should be a reasoned one and merely by recording the Word "excessive;" "exhorbitant", "rackless" will not amount to sufficient compliance of the provision of the said sub-rule ( 4 ) of the Rule 28. We are the opinion that the Mahkuma Parishad while settling the market should give sufficient and cogent reasons if highest or if any other higher bids are rejected 11. We are the opinion that the Mahkuma Parishad while settling the market should give sufficient and cogent reasons if highest or if any other higher bids are rejected 11. To sum up, we held that in settling Bazaar/Hats under the Rules normally the settling authority should accept the highest bid as such settlement is for augmentation of revenue ; of course for good and sufficient ground and in public interest such bid can be rejected. As contemplated under sub-section ( 4 ) of Rule 28 of the Rule, in case of 'such rejection of the highest or any other higher bids the settling authority must record sufficient and cogent reasons. The appellate authority should also consider whether the settling authority has comp­lied with the provisions of sub-section (. 4 ) of Rule 28 of the Rules by recording such reasons, if any higher bid is rejected. 12. In view of the above proposition of law we are of the opinion that in the case in hand there was no sufficient compliance of sub-rule ( 4 ) of Rule 28 of the Rules and that the appellate authority also did not consider the appeal in accordance with the provision of law and as such the orders are liable to be set aside. 13. However, as the time of lease is going to expire within a period of two months we are of the opinion that any writ issued by us would be infructuous, as within the said period it may not be possible for the authority to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the matter. In view of the above consideration we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage. In the result, the petition is dismissed, parties to bear their own costs.