JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.4350/2016 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.4537/2016. Also heard Mr. Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the Dibrugarh Municipal Board, for short, ‘the Board’. 2. Both the writ petitions are in relation to settlement of parking lots under the Board but filed with somewhat different dimensions. These two writ petitions were taken up for disposal analogously and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case projected by the petitioner in WP(C) No.4350/2016 is that the petitioner was interested to submit tender for one of the parking places under the Board and he did come across a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the Chairperson of the Board, i.e. the respondent No.4, on 22.07.2016 in a daily newspaper, namely, “Dainik Janambhumi”. The NIT was issued for settlement of 11(eleven) numbers of parking lots fixing 27.07.2016 as the last date of submission as well as opening of tenders. In the NIT, it is mentioned that tender papers would be issued from 21.07.2016 to 25.07.2016. On going through the detail particulars, it was noticed that the intending tenderers were to submit up to date Income Tax Clearance Certificate and Pan Card, Bakijai Clearance Certificate from the District Administration, Financial Soundness Certificate from any nationalised bank and the earnest money in the form of Bank Draft in favour of the Executive Officer of the Board. It is contended by the petitioner that 23.07.2016 and 24.07.2016 were holidays being fourth Saturday and Sunday, respectively, and, therefore, it was not reasonably practicable to obtain all the requisite documents for the purpose of submission of valid tender. It is stated that Rules holding the field for granting settlement provides for publication of NIT in newspaper giving one month notice. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 stating that the NIT was issued in view of the direction of the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh dated 12.07.2016 for selection of lessees for collection of parking fees transparently through a proper tender process. As the District Magistrate had also directed immediate stopping of collection of parking fees, the Chairperson of the Board had issued the order dated 15.07.2016 to stop collection of tolls from all parking lots with immediate effect. As the District Magistrate had also directed immediate stopping of collection of parking fees, the Chairperson of the Board had issued the order dated 15.07.2016 to stop collection of tolls from all parking lots with immediate effect. An order was passed by the Chairman of the Board on 19.07.2016 for issuance of NIT and based on the same, NIT was accordingly issued and the same was also hung up in the Notice Board of the Board on 19.07.2016. Last date of submission of tender papers was given as 27.07.2016 due to paucity of time and because of financial loss suffered by the Board. The NIT had received wide publicity and 155 numbers of tender papers were collected. 5. WP(C) No.4537/2016 was filed by the persons, who were engaged vide various letters issued on 01.07.2016 for collection of tolls at parking lots for the period 01.07.2016 to 31.03.2017. They have approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.07.2016 and the tender notice dated 19.07.2016 issued by the Chairman of the Board. 6. It is pleaded that in view of possible legal embargo for issuing the NIT to settle the markets, etc. because of ensuing general elections, a resolution being resolution No.5 was adopted in the meeting of the Board on 21.01.2016 to settle the markets with the unemployed youths or the existing lessees for a period of 3(three) months and, thereafter, to settle the same for the remaining term by issuing NIT. Resolution was also adopted for settlement of parking lots with persons considered suitable by the Board without inviting tender as the parking lots are small in size. Thereafter, the Board engaged its own employees for a period of 3(three) months for collection of tolls but the move did not yield the desired result and accordingly, the petitioners were engaged for collection of tolls. The petitioners were restrained from collecting tolls from 13.07.2016 and, therefore, enquiries were made by them and, on such enquiries, they came to learn that their allotment orders had been cancelled on 13.07.2016. However, copies were not furnished to them. It is also pleaded that the NIT dated 19.07.2016 was not preceded by any resolution of the Board and, therefore, the same is illegal. Objection is also taken for grant of only few days time for submission of tender. 7. However, copies were not furnished to them. It is also pleaded that the NIT dated 19.07.2016 was not preceded by any resolution of the Board and, therefore, the same is illegal. Objection is also taken for grant of only few days time for submission of tender. 7. In the affidavit filed in WP(C) 4537/2016, the Board and the Chairperson of the Board had taken more or less the same stand as is taken in WP(C) No.4350/2016. In addition, it is pleaded that in view of Section 296 and 296-A of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (for short, “1956 Act”), the Board is duty bound to follow the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. 8. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.4350/2016 has submitted that the impugned NIT, giving less than 7(seven) days time for submission of tenders, was issued only to bestow undue favour to the chosen and favoured ones as genuine tenderers could not have participated in the tender process. 9. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.4537/2016 has submitted that the petitioners were engaged for collection of parking tolls at different locations by various orders but subsequently, at the instance of the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh, the allotment orders of the petitioners were cancelled by the Chairman of the Board by abdicating his power. It is submitted by him that cancellation of the allotment orders having been passed without opportunity of hearing, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned cancellation orders are liable to be set aside and quashed and the petitioners should be allowed to collect tolls up to 31.03.2017. Consequently, the NIT dated 19.07.2016 should also be set aside and quashed. He has submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had deposited Rs.15,000/-, the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had deposited Rs.30,000/- and the petitioner No.5 had deposited Rs.35,000/- as revenue for the period of their engagement in advance. He has argued that the letter dated 12.07.2016 is an unwarranted intrusion of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh in the affairs of the Board. He has relied on a judgment of this Court in Municipal Board, Sivasagar -Vs- Secretary to the Government of Assam, Municipal Administration Department, reported in (1983) 2 GLR 63. 10. Mr. He has argued that the letter dated 12.07.2016 is an unwarranted intrusion of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh in the affairs of the Board. He has relied on a judgment of this Court in Municipal Board, Sivasagar -Vs- Secretary to the Government of Assam, Municipal Administration Department, reported in (1983) 2 GLR 63. 10. Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Board and its Chairman has pleaded that no exception can be taken for complying with the direction of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.2016. He has submitted that the Board should be permitted to take the NIT to its logical end. He has also submitted in categorical terms that since the passing of the interim order dated 15.07.2016, no parking fee is collected by the Board. He has also submitted that it is not correct as submitted by Mr. Saikia that the petitioners had deposited money towards payment of revenue. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 12. By an order dated 26.07.2016, while issuing notice of motion, this Court passed an interim order directing that tenders received in connection with 11(eleven) parking lots, as indicated in the NIT, shall not opened. 13. The tender notice dated 19.07.2016 recites that the same was issued in terms of Section 148(6) of the 1956 Act for the financial year 2016-17, meaning thereby, up to 31.03.2017. 14. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.2016 to the Chairman of the Board was on the subject of immediate stoppage of unauthorised collection of parking fees. Perusal of the said letter goes to show that it was noticed by the District Administration that the Board was collecting parking fees in different places of Dibrugarh Town through private parties without following due procedure and also outside the areas notified as parking area vide Notification dated 08.12.2015 issued by the Board and, therefore, the Chairman was requested to stop such unauthorised collection of parking fee immediately. The letter also requested the Chairman to put requisite signage at specific parking places in the notified area, select the lessees for collection of parking fees transparently through a proper tender process and to ensure that collection of parking fees is done as per provisions of law. 15. The letter also requested the Chairman to put requisite signage at specific parking places in the notified area, select the lessees for collection of parking fees transparently through a proper tender process and to ensure that collection of parking fees is done as per provisions of law. 15. Based on the aforesaid letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.2016, by letter dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Chairperson of the Board, all the allotment of parking lots made had been cancelled with a direction to stop collection of tolls from the parking lots with immediate effect. The employees entrusted were also, accordingly, directed not to collect any toll from the parking lots until further orders. 16. Section 148(2) of the 1956 Act provides that the Board may levy rent, toll and fees at such rates as it may think proper for the right to expose goods for sale in a municipal market and for the use of shops, stalls and standings therein and also in respect of parking lots and may also regulate such rates in respect of private markets or places used or declared by the Board as a market place, parking lot, by public notice in the locality. In exercise of powers conferred by Sections 147, 148 and 301 of the 1956 Act, Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam were framed vide Notification dated 24.06.1958. Rule 3 thereof provides that sale by public auction of the right to levy fines and charges in respect of any pound and to collect the authorised fees in respect of any market shall be held by giving a public notice of 1(one) month, not later than 14th day of February in the financial year preceding that in which the lease is to take effect. Though parking lot is not specifically mentioned in the Rule, it is noticed that Section 148 speaks about parking lots and, therefore, it will not be incongruous to hold that even for a parking lot NIT has to be issued by the same yardstick as in the case of pounds and markets. 17. The publication of an NIT is to facilitate wider participation in respect of any process for distribution of state largesse. A reasonable period of notice is the essence of any NIT. 17. The publication of an NIT is to facilitate wider participation in respect of any process for distribution of state largesse. A reasonable period of notice is the essence of any NIT. By no yardstick, period of 7(seven) days can be said to be adequate for the purpose which an NIT seeks to achieve. 18. The impugned NIT dated 19.07.2016 falls far short of the requirement of a valid NIT and, therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the NIT dated 19.07.2016. Ordered accordingly. As the financial year is coming to an end shortly, even if any fresh NIT is directed to be issued at this stage the same would not result in any fruitful action having regard to the notice period and the time that would be taken for processing of the tenders. Therefore, I refrain from issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent Board to issue NIT at this stage for the period up to 31.03.2017. Instead, Board may take immediate and prompt steps to issue NIT for the period commencing from 01.04.2017 for settlement of parking lots. 19. Neither the petitioners nor the Board has put forward on what basis the petitioners had been picked up for the purpose of engagement for collection of tolls. There is no escape from the conclusion that the engagement of the petitioners for collection of parking toll is without any transparent process and such engagement was de hors the known principles governing distribution of state largesse. 20. Perusal of the prayer in WP(C) 4537/2016 goes to show that the petitioners had not challenged the order of cancellation. However, with regard to the pleadings of the writ petitioners that order of cancellation was issued on 13.07.2016 and that the same was issued without hearing the petitioners, there is no denial in the affidavit of the Board. The Board has also not brought on record the order of cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners. Thus, it is more or less an admitted position that the engagement orders of the petitioners had been cancelled without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 21. It must not be forgotten that the principles of natural justice have many facets and shades. Thus, it is more or less an admitted position that the engagement orders of the petitioners had been cancelled without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 21. It must not be forgotten that the principles of natural justice have many facets and shades. In a case where setting aside of an order, which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, results in resurrection and restoration of an order which was not passed in accordance with law, a writ court will be justified not to invoke jurisdiction to set aside and quash such an order. (See Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 ). The principle is squarely applicable in the instant case as setting aside and quashing the cancellation of the engagement orders would result in resurrection of illegal orders of engagement of the petitioners for collection of toll. Therefore, I decline to invoke my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders of cancellation. 22. So far as the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh dated 12.07.2016 is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the determination made above, it will not be necessary for this Court to go into the question relating to the legitimacy and validity of the order dated 12.07.2016 as the same will be an academic exercise. The power of Deputy Commissioner to issue directions to a Municipal Board can be considered in a more appropriate case. 23. In view of the above discussions, WP(C) No.4350/2016 is allowed setting aside the NIT dated 22.07.2016 with the observations as indicated above. WP(C) No.4537/2016 is disposed of by setting aside the NIT dated 19.07.2016 but declining the prayer for setting aside the order dated 12.07.2016 and refusing to interfere with the orders of cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners for collection of toll. 24. The petitioners individually will be at liberty to produce evidence of deposit of money, as submitted by Mr. Saikia, which is noted in Paragraph 9 of this judgment, before the Board. In the event of production of any document demonstrating making of any deposit towards payment of revenue, the same shall be refunded without any delay. 25. 24. The petitioners individually will be at liberty to produce evidence of deposit of money, as submitted by Mr. Saikia, which is noted in Paragraph 9 of this judgment, before the Board. In the event of production of any document demonstrating making of any deposit towards payment of revenue, the same shall be refunded without any delay. 25. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.