JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. D. Das Barman, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.6. None appears for the respondent No.4. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the settlement order dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure-E of the writ petition) issued by the Secretary/Executive Officer, Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat settling Aidoba Hat in favour of the respondent No.6 and to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to settle the same in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts pleaded in the writ petition, in a nutshell, are that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 16.05.2016 by the President of Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat for settlement of Aidoba Hat for the year 2016-2017. The petitioner had submitted his tender offering Rs.7,25,552/- enclosing all the documents required to be submitted under the NIT and the tender of the petitioner is the highest valid tender. It is stated that his father, namely, Dhan Kumar Hajong @ Dhan Kumar Barman had stood as his guarantor and the value of the land of the guarantor, as per the land valuation certificate dated 13.6.2016 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Mankachar is Rs. 11,04,450/-. It is also stated that Dhan Kumar Hajong had sworn an affidavit stating that his actual name is Dhan Kumar Hajong but due to bonafide mistake, his name is also recorded in some land documents as Dhan Kumar Barman and the said affidavit was also submitted along with the tender. It is pleaded that the comparative statement of the Hat was prepared in an arbitrary manner and the signatures of the members of the General Standing Committee were obtained hurriedly. However, the impugned order of settlement dated 20.07.2016 was issued in favour of the respondent No.6, who had submitted tender for Rs.85,000/- and the tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is discrepancy in the name of the guarantor and that the value of the land is less than the bid value as well as on the ground that the petitioner had not put his signature in the tender paper. 4. The respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit. 4. The respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is alleged that the remarks column in the comparative statement was filled up in the handwriting of the Executive Officer of Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat after obtaining the signatures of the members. It is also stated that at the time of examination of the tenders with regard to Aidoba Hat, the petitioner’s tender was found to be the highest valid tender with all documents and subsequently, keeping the members in the dark, the Executive Officer had put his own remarks. It is also stated that accordingly, he had lodged complaint before the Chief Executive Officer, Dhubri Zilla Parishad. 5. The respondent No.3, i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of Dhubri Zilla Parishad in his affidavit has stated that allegations being directed against Anchalik Panchayat, the Zilla Parishad has no comment. 6. The respondent No.6 had filed an affidavit contending that the final order of settlement dated 26.07.2016 is not challenged in the writ petition and what is challenged is a temporary settlement order, which was subsequently cancelled and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In such affidavit, while denying the allegations made in the writ petition, it is stated that the tender of the respondent No.6 was found to be the highest valid tender and accordingly, the Hat was settled with the respondent No.6. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the complaints lodged by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat are motivated. 7. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that manipulations made by the Executive Officer of the Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat are fortified by the affidavit of the respondent No.4, who is the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, as he had, in his affidavit, stated that the remarks were put by the Executive Officer without the knowledge of the members of the General Standing Committee. According to him, the petitioner is the highest valid tenderer and, therefore, grant of settlement in favour of respondent No.6 is, per se, arbitrary and illegal. Mr. Chetri submits that as the name of the guarantor was recorded in some documents as Dhan Kumar Barman, an affidavit was filed to that effect by Dhan Kumar Hajong and, therefore, even on that count, the observation in the comparative statement showing the ground of rejection of his tender is not correct. Mr. Chetri submits that as the name of the guarantor was recorded in some documents as Dhan Kumar Barman, an affidavit was filed to that effect by Dhan Kumar Hajong and, therefore, even on that count, the observation in the comparative statement showing the ground of rejection of his tender is not correct. It is further submitted by him that value of the land of his guarantor is much more that the bid amount. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Apurba Das -Vs- State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) GLT 406 and Nagaon Zilla Parishad & Ors. -Vs- Rezia Begum & Ors., reported in 2006 (Suppl.) GLT 585. 8. By producing the records, Mrs. D. Das Barman, learned State counsel submits that in the tender documents submitted by the petitioner there is no signature of the petitioner and his Jamindar and on that ground alone the tender was liable to be rejected. It is submitted that while there is an affidavit of Dhan Kumar Hajong wherein it is stated that he had stood as guarantor for the petitioner, there is no affidavit of Dhan Kumar Hajong on record stating that his name is wrongly recorded as Dhan Kumar Barman in some of the land documents. It is also submitted by her that document at Annexure-B, which is stated to be the land valuation certificate, is not the one which is available in the tender record. The said land valuation certificate shows the total value of the land is Rs.5,83,800/-, which is less than the bid amount of the petitioner. Accordingly, she submits that the tender of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 9. Mr. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that the plea taken by the petitioner that the comparative statement is manipulated by the Executive Officer of Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat is an afterthought and besides, such a plea is raised only to favour the petitioner for extraneous consideration. He has submitted that tender of the respondent No.6 being the highest valid tender, the market was rightly settled with the respondent No.6 and no interference is called for. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 11. He has submitted that tender of the respondent No.6 being the highest valid tender, the market was rightly settled with the respondent No.6 and no interference is called for. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 11. The comparative statement as available in the records belies the claim of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent No.4. 4(four) Anchalik Panchayat members as well as the President of Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat had recommended settlement in favour of the respondent No.6. The recommendation is also a hand written note. 12. Section 105(3) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”), provides that the power of examination and final acceptance of tenders shall be vested on the Standing Committee referred to in Section 52(1)(a) and all settlements made under Sub-section (3) shall be subject to the confirmation of the Zilla Parishad. Therefore, it is obvious that the General Standing Committee had accepted the bid of the respondent No.6. The General Standing Committee, in law, could not have accepted the tender of the respondent No.6 if there are higher valid bidders. It stands to reason that because of the remarks made against the tenders of respective tenderers, the General Standing Committee had decided to accept the tender of the respondent No.6. Significantly, in the affidavit of the respondent No.4, recommendation made in favour of the respondent No.6 is not denied and what is sought to be projected is that the remarks column was filled up by the Executive Officer without his knowledge. 13. In the comparative statement, it is recorded against the petitioner as follows:- “Discrepancy in the name of the Jamindar. Value of the land offered is much less than the value of the tender and therefore, the tender is defective. There is no signature of the tenderer.” 14. Perusal of the records as produced by Mrs. Das Barman fortifies her submission that neither the tenderer nor the Jamindar had put signatures in the said tender. The land valuation certificate of the tenderer annexed with the tender in the name of Amar Nath Hajong shows that value of the land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 12 lechas is Rs. 5,83,800/-, which is less than the bid of the petitioner. The aforesaid certificate is numbered as MKCS 6/86/135 or 235 (not very clear), dated 13.6.2016. The land valuation certificate of the tenderer annexed with the tender in the name of Amar Nath Hajong shows that value of the land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 12 lechas is Rs. 5,83,800/-, which is less than the bid of the petitioner. The aforesaid certificate is numbered as MKCS 6/86/135 or 235 (not very clear), dated 13.6.2016. The document annexed by the petitioner at Annexure-B purporting to be the land valuation certificate submitted by him is under Memo No. MKCS 6/86/136 or 236 (not very clear), which is also dated 13.6.2016. Therefore, the certificate annexed with the writ petition is a subsequent document to the one, which is available on the record. In the certificate annexed with the writ petition, though the value of the land is shown to be Rs.11,64,450/-, evidently, this certificate was not submitted by the petitioner. In the tender record, there is also no affidavit of Dhan Kumar Hajong stating that his name is wrongly recorded as Dhan Kumar Barman in land documents. 15. The comparative statement goes to show that only the respondent No.6 had submitted all the documents, as required under the NIT. 16. In Nagaon Zilla Parishad (supra), this Court had observed that in absence of prior and formal approval of the State Government as required under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 (for short, “2002 Rules), settlement made in favour of a lower tenderer is not valid. The ratio of the aforesaid case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the present is not a case where a lower tenderer is sought to be favoured with a settlement order ignoring a higher valid tenderer. 17. In Apurba Das (supra), this Court had held that tender of the petitioner in the said case being highest and his tender being a regular one, the market ought to have been settled with him. The same is not the case here, inasmuch as this Court has found that the tender of the petitioner was rightly rejected because of the discrepancy with regard to the documents of the guarantor. 18. Considering the matter in its entirety, I find that no case is made out by the petitioner for interference with the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.