D. BISWAS, J. — Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Dr. BP Todi, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati Municipal Corporation. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. This is a second round of litigation. The dispute centres around the settlement of Khanamukh Check Gate by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation. The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No. 2681/2002 challenging the settlement process initiated. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by the Judgment and order dated 31.5.2002 directing the respondent Corporation to complete the process of settlement in terms of the policy decision regarding rates and other terms and conditions. Thereafter, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2002 whereby the Khanamukh Check Gate has been settled with the private respondent No. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order of settlement in this petition. The petitioner has quoted Rs. 82,36,649/- which is 12.5% above the estimated value and in his opinion, as per terms and conditions of the NIT, the corporation ought to have settled the Check Gate with him, and certainly not with the respondent No. 4. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that the Corporation ought to have embarked upon the exercise of working out the viable rate after receipt of tender papers and settle the Check Gate with the respondent No. 4 at his quoted value of Rs. 84,21,4927- which is 15.2% above the estimated value (Para -14 of the writ petition). The value has been adjusted at Rs. 69,44,973/- because of delay in issuing the order of settlement. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the amount offered by the petitioner was lower than that of the respondent No. 4 Check Gates are settled by the Corporation for the purpose of augmenting its revenue. The Respondent No. 4 has quoted an amount higher than the writ petitioner and, therefore, he has an edge over the writ petitioner. Even if the settlement with the respondent No. 4 has been made in deviation of certain terms and conditions of the NIT, that will not be ground for setting aside the settlement just because the petitioner feels aggrieved. The order of settlement can be interfered only when it is found that the petitioner being the highest bidder has been wrongfully deprived of the settlement because of the alleged deviation. The order of settlement can be interfered only when it is found that the petitioner being the highest bidder has been wrongfully deprived of the settlement because of the alleged deviation. The tender document of the respondent No. 4 was perfect in all respects. The other tenderers who had quoted rates higher than that of the Respondent No. 4 have not approached the Court to vindicate their grievance. It would have been altogether a different scenario, if any of them would have come and challenged the order of settlement. That apart, the settlement was made on 3rd June, 2002 and the lessee has already been in operation of the check Gate. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of settlement. The question about alleged deviation from certain terms and conditions of settlement of Check Gates. Parking Places for the year 2002-03 formulated by the Corporation are not being addressed as it cannot salvage the case of the writ petitioner. The concept of' viable rate' may be redundant, in the context of the NIT. Even dehor the above concept, the respondent No. 4 has an edge over the petitioner in view of the higher rate quoted by him. The impugned settlement even if set aside is not going to benefit the petitioner in any way. Needless to say, the prospect of getting higher revenue from the other higher bidders should be the concern of the Corporation and not of the Court. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.