These writ petitions have been preferred by the respective writ petitioners against the Gauhati Municipal Corporation for a direction to revoke/cancel the tender notice issued by the respondent Corporation and also to give remission and/or extension of the settlement made in their favour. 2. As the claim of the petitioners are similar and identical in facts and law, I propose to categorise all these cases in two categories as below and pass a common judgment. Group A (Relating to Check Gates): CR1528 of 1998, CR1260 of 1998, CR 1302 of 1998, CR 1353 of 1998, CR 1399 of 1998, CR 1375 of 1998. Group B (Relating to Parking Places) : CR 1354 of 1998, CR 1256 of 1998, CR 1355 of 1998, CR 1357 of 1998. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have alleged violation of clauses 4 and 8 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (Settlement of Lease of Check Gate, Parking Places, Markets etc) Bye Laws, 1996 (for short the Bye Laws) while challenging the tender notice as stated above. 3. In Civil Rule Nos 1302 of 1998 and 1375 of 1998 the petitioner was settled with the Khanapara Check Gate for the year 1997-98 at a bid value of Rs.2,61,16,1157- in response to Tender Notice No.GEF/37/97/2 dated 10.3.97. Accordingly petitioner deposited security deposit of Rs.65,29,029/- and an agreement was entered into between the parties. Clause 21 of the terms and conditions of the said tender notice runs thus : "No remission or any exemption under any circumstances will be entertained due to natural calamities, bandhs, floods or any other disturbances or any shortfall of collection. Any application seeking remission would disqualify the leases and the lease shall be terminated immediately." Petitioner's grievance is that after starting operation of the lease petitioner faced trouble as all the calamities mentioned in clause 21 took place resulting failure of the petitioner to operate the check gate through out the year. It is contended that though the clause 21 was incorporated in the tender petitioner anticipated a reasonable profit from the lease as there is always invariably the presumption of prevalence of normal condition for execution of the agreement in its spirit and terms. Had there been normal flow of vehicles during the lease period petitioner would have made sufficient profit within this period. Had there been normal flow of vehicles during the lease period petitioner would have made sufficient profit within this period. With this anticipation petitioner offered huge amount, which was, it is contended, more than the viable rate of Rs.1,95 crores estimated by the GMC authority. Though petitioner was given possession of the gate on 10.4.97 he could start the actual work only from 11.4.97. After possession of the gate petitioner faced difficulties in collecting tolls from the vehicles passed through the gate; that an amount of Rsp.71,551/- is required to be collected by the petitioner as tolls for payment of the instalment to the GMC per day. Besides the petitioner is required to pay the interest of the security money, salary of the staff and other miscellaneous expenditure and for this petitioner is required to collect Rs.91,000/- per day as tolls which became-impossible due to the political unrest and deteriorating law and order situation in the region; that whenever any bandh call is given in any of the States of the region the operation of the check gate is affected badly, and therefore, there is a decline of collections of the estimated amount. This matter was informed verbally to the respondent No.2 who assured to consider this aspect in due time. It is also contended that representation was submitted on 21.11.97 (Annexure D) praying for on the spot survey of the collection of tolls. But instead of considering the representation it is alleged, the respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount and accordingly petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.8 lakhs on 12.1.98 with a request to grant him some time in view of the fact that a similar application for granting remission was filed before the respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 granted some time to the petitioner to clear the outstanding dues and petitioner claims that he has cleared the amount of Rs.2,61,16,116/- to the Corporation. After clearing the dues petitioner also simultaneously filed appeal before the respondent No.2 on 26.12.97 stating all the facts and circumstances. 4. In view of this backdrop, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the initial rate of Rs.1.95 crore petitioner made the highest bid of Rs.2,61,16,116/- anticipating that the increasing number of vehicles will give the petitioner an opportunity of realising the tolls estimated by the Corporation with profits. 4. In view of this backdrop, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the initial rate of Rs.1.95 crore petitioner made the highest bid of Rs.2,61,16,116/- anticipating that the increasing number of vehicles will give the petitioner an opportunity of realising the tolls estimated by the Corporation with profits. Pointing all the daily expenditure incurred by the petitioner, the counsel has drawn the attention to the statement made in the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner is to pay an amount of Rs.97,935/- with interest on the security deposit of Rs.65,29029/- at the rate of 18%; that there are 16 Nos of collectors who are required to be paid @ Rs.2,000/- each; that there are four Cashier and they are required to be paid @ Rs.3,000/- each per month, one Manager to be paid Rs.2,500/- per month and a peon to be paid Rs.1,200/- per month besides house rent and maintenance charge of the check gate of Rs.3,500/-per month; stationery for one month of Rs.12,500/-; conveyance of Rs.6,500/-and misc expenses of Rs. 10,0007- and the monthly instalment of Rs.21,76,343/-to the Corporation (Annexure F). Counsel for the petitioner further submit that the appeal before the respondent No.2 was based on admitted facts on records but in spite of that the respondent Corporation disposed of the representation by a cryptic order in two lines. The problems faced by the petitioner were beyond his control, but the petitioner became the victim of the situation and there was no negligence or laches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has also given details of loss of working days and stated that for 133 days out 365 days he could not operate the check gate resulting heacy loss. This aspect was, however, not considered by the respondent No.2, 5. In Civil Rule No. 1399 of 1998 petitioner is the sitting lessee of Khanamukh Check Gate. Petitioner was settled with the check gate for the year 1997-98 at a price of Rs.1,18,41,600/-. It is submitted that the gate was settled for 353 days and thus the settled value comes to Rs. 1,09,68,144/- and the security value comes to Rs.27,42,036. But the petitioner was asked to deposit security money of Rs. 28,35,250/- and the petitioner deposited Rs.28,40,000/-. Thus an amount of Rs. 97,964/- was paid in excess of the security amount. It is submitted that the gate was settled for 353 days and thus the settled value comes to Rs. 1,09,68,144/- and the security value comes to Rs.27,42,036. But the petitioner was asked to deposit security money of Rs. 28,35,250/- and the petitioner deposited Rs.28,40,000/-. Thus an amount of Rs. 97,964/- was paid in excess of the security amount. The petitioner paid 13 instalments of Rs.30,71,523/- at the rate of Rs. 2,3 6,271/- per week, but according to the petitioner, the weekly instalment should have been Rs.2,28,503/- and the actual amount for 13 instalments comes to Rs.29,70,539/- and, thus, the petitioner paid excess amount of Rs.1,00,984/-. Petitioner was further directed to deposit Rs.10,11,472/- as outstanding amount and Rs.1,26,434/- for weekly instalments and the petitioner cleared the same. The petitioner claims refund of Rs.22,44,671/-to compensate the loss during the lease period. Further contention of the petitioner is that the estimated rate of the check gate was for Rs.65,00,000/- and petitioner quoted bid rate of Rs.1,13,41,000/- whereas, daily collection was only Rs.18,000/-per day on average. Petitioner's further contention is that due to the ban on movement of all forest products the movement of vehicles and entry thereof has been seriously affected and, therefore, petitioner filed application on 19.7.97 to that effect requesting the Commissioner to depute an officer to make on the spot assessment (Annexure 5) and for fix the daily payable amount on the basis of spot assessment. However, petitioner was directed to deposit the actual daily collection as weekly instalment considering the poor collection. Survey was made by the Corporation from 19.8.97 to 31.8.97 and the daily average collection was found Rs. 18,062/-. Petitioner paid the last instalment of Rs.2,36,271/- on 4.8.97. It is claimed that on the appeal the Commissioner assured to look into the matter in due course. Accordingly, the Commissioner reduced the instalment rate to Rs. 1,26,434/- wef 30.9.97 onwards admitting decline in the flow of vehicles on the actual assessment. It is further contended that deteriorating actual value of the gate in question was accepted by the Commissioner and that on the basis of this fact petitioner requested the Commissioner to give retrospective effect to the letter dated 12.9.97 (Annexure 6) wef 12.4.97 by fixing the weekly instalment at Rs, 1,26,434/- and the petitioner further requested the Commissioner to refund the excess payment of Rs.22,44,671/-. Petitioner has also taken the plea of loss of working days on the ground of ban on movement of vehicles carrying forest products, natural calamities and law and order situations etc and prays for extension of the lease for the year 1998-99 to compensate the loss. 6. In Civil Rule No. 1528 of 1998 and CR 1260 of 1998 petitioner is the sitting lessee of Saraighat Check Gate and petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to extend her lease period. Petitioner was settled with the check gate for the year 1997-98 for a bid value of Rs.2,30,00,000/- for the period 1.4.97 to 31.3.98. It is claimed that the petitioner has been paying the instalments regularly. Petitioner has taken the plea of loss of working days due to decline in the movement of vehicles on account of various bandhs, ban on movement of vehicles, natural calamities and law and order situation. Petitioner filed application for remission and alleges that no consideration has been given on her petition. 7. In Civil RuleNos 1357 of 1998,1354 of 1998,1355 of 1988 and 1256 of 199? the petitioners are sitting lessees of parking places and prays for a direction from this Court to respondents to revoke, recall and/or rescind the impugned tender notice and prays for extension of the lease to compensate their losses. Petitioners have taken the same grounds as in the earlier writ petitions for which they suffered loss in the parking places. 8. A common affidavit has been filed by the respondent Corporation through its Collector. The averments of the respondents is that the writ petitions are not sustainable in view of the condition put forth in clause 21 of the tender notice and, therefore, petitioners are estopped to claim any relief. It is further averred that the settlement of the check gate was given to the petitioners at the rate offered by them; that the expenditure of the petitioners in running the check gate by employing staff etc are not the concern of the Corporation and has no relevance with the terms and conditions of the lease. It is also denied that the petitioners ever informed the respondent No.2 that they are unable to run the gate. However, it has been admitted that the petitioners filed representations and the same were rejected in view of the terms and conditions of the tender notice and lease agreement. It is also denied that the petitioners ever informed the respondent No.2 that they are unable to run the gate. However, it has been admitted that the petitioners filed representations and the same were rejected in view of the terms and conditions of the tender notice and lease agreement. That the respondent Corporation did not terminate the lease as per clause 21 though the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Respondents also denied the loss of 133 working days and averred that there was no suspension of traffic in National Highway 37 as most of the bandhs were called in Karbi Anglong and Kokrajhar District. 9. Taking into consideration the claim and counter claim of the parties it is to be seen whether the petitioners suffered loss due to loss of working days effecting the flow of vehicles and whether they should be compensated by giving remission or refunding some amount deposited by them to the Corporation or to extend the lease as prayed for. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners have given some instances of remission given earlier by the Govt/Corporation. It has been pointed out that 'on earlier occasions in spite of the terms and conditions inserted in clause 21 of the tender notice the authorities considered the prayer for remission and extension of the lease of check gates etc. In support of this submission some documents have been, annexed with the writ petition which have been marked as Annexure H series in CR1375 of 1998. An attempt has been made by Mr. PC Deka, senior counsel for the Corporation to show that those orders of remission have been issued by the Govt and not by the Corporation. But from the records produced before the Court and also from the Annexures it is seen that even in 1997 the Commissioner of Gauhati Municipal Corporation made remission in favour of the sitting lessee of Khanapara Check Gate for the loss suffered during the period 1996-97 and even remission was granted to the lessee of Khonamukh Check Gate on 12.9.97. In view of the above there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the present petitioners for remission has not been considered by the respondent Corporation. In view of the above there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the present petitioners for remission has not been considered by the respondent Corporation. I hold that the respondent Corporation discriminated the petitioners by not considering their case when similarly situated persons were granted relief. Regarding the claim of loss of working days the respondent Corporation except showing clause 21 of the tender notice could not give any cogent reason countering the claim of remission and refund. When respondent Corporation granted remission to similarly situated lessees the same cannot be denied to other lessees and this action of the respondent Corporation is violative of the norms of administrative fair play and equal treatment to equally situated persons. In view of the above reason, I direct the respondent Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount claimed by them and also to extend the lease period. 11. Petitioners have alleged violation of clauses 4 and 8 of the Bye Laws. I have perused the said clauses of the Bye Laws. Clauses 4 and 8 prescribe the procedure how to invite tender and settle the check gates, parking places, markets etc. According to the petitioners the object of these clauses are to provide sufficient time to the intending tenderer to prepare himself and submit the tenders. These clauses prescribe minimum 45 days to complete the procedure. However, in the instant cases this has not been complied with. The statutory provisions of the Bye Laws provide power to the Commissioner to invite tender of his own and apparently time is the essence of the procedure for calling tender so that prescribed time would facilitate the process of tender, giving opportunity to the intending tenderers. I hold that the provisions are mandatory and non-compliance would result the action of the respondent Corporation illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly I do so. The respondent Commissioner shall initiate the process of calling tender afresh following the procedure prescribed under clause 4 and 8 of the Bye Laws. 12. During the course of hearing Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation informed this Court that the Corporation has extended the existing lease period in almost all the cases and now the petitioners are operating the check gates/parking places accordingly. 13. 12. During the course of hearing Mr. PC Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation informed this Court that the Corporation has extended the existing lease period in almost all the cases and now the petitioners are operating the check gates/parking places accordingly. 13. From the above discussion, I hold that all the petitioners are in equal footing and they should be treated equally for consideration of remission/refund/ extension. Apparently no enquiry was made by the respondent Corporation and no survey took place as was done in some cases to ascertain the loss. In most of the cases the entire amount has been paid to the Corporation and in some cases the amount has not been cleared as demand of refund of the loss amount has not been considered yet. The respondent Corporation shall consider the cases of the petitioner individually on facts keeping in view their respective claims. It is also made clear that each case shall be considered on its own merit and the respondent Corporation is at liberty to give its finding/relief in each case accordingly. This shall be done within two weeks from receipt of this judgment. The respondent Cor­poration is also at liberty to extend the period of lease, if found feasible to do so. 14. In Civil Rule No. 1353 of 1998 petitioner was willing to file tender but he has been estopped by clause 4 of the terms and conditions wherein a new condition was inserted to the effect that the tederer shall have to furnish return of income tax for the last three consecutive years in support of their tender, besides other conditions, that no tender shall be valid without upto date trade licence obtained from the Corporation, upto date property tax paying receipt etc. It is seen that the petitioner in this case challenges only a part of clause 4. To satisfy itself in giving a lease the respondent authority has the jurisdiction to put any condition and such conditions are required to ascertain the financial soundness of a bidder. The contention of the petitioner is that no such condition was put earlier and for the first time those conditions have been put by the respondent authority. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner has no force at all. The contention of the petitioner is that no such condition was put earlier and for the first time those conditions have been put by the respondent authority. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner has no force at all. As it is seen, the bid amount relating to settlement of parking places and check gates is increasing tremendously involving huge amount of money and, therefore, some conditions for smooth functioning of the work are required to be incorporated in the terms and conditions. In the instant case, in my view, the action of the respondent Corporation is not violative of any Constitutional or legal rights of the petitioner and insertion of the condition (s) in the tender notice is within the power and jurisdiction of the respondent Corporation. I find no merit in the submission of this writ petitioner, and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 15. With the above discussion and direction the petitions are disposed of accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.