JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr J Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7; Ms M Barman, learned State Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr D Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (Council) to settle Ranaima Entry Tax Gate in favour of respondent No. 8 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to settle the Ranaima Entry Tax Gate for the calendar year 2019-2020 with the petitioner being the highest bidder. 3. As would be evident from the prayer itself, matter relates to settlement of Ranaima Entry Tax Gate (Gate) by the Council for the year 2019-2020. It is stated that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by the Council on 31.01.2019, inviting tenders from intending tenderers for sale of entry tax gates, markets, ghats, fisheries etc. within the jurisdiction of the Council for the year 2019-2020. The NIT covered Ranaima Entry Tax Gate (Gate) with which this litigation is concerned. As per Condition No. 4 of the terms and conditions accompanying the NIT, a tender would be rejected if it was submitted by a defaulter or if it was found that incomplete documents were submitted or if any document was found to be forged. As per Condition No. 5, a selected tenderer would have to deposit the settled amount in one installment within 7 days from the date of issuance of the settlement order, failing which, the settlement order would be cancelled and the security amount would be forfeited. As per Condition No. 17, a tenderer was required to furnish financial soundness certificate equivalent to the offered amount issued by any Nationalized Bank for his/her own or his/her guarantor along with tender application. It was mentioned therein that the term of lease would be from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. 4. According to the petitioner, he being interested and eligible, responded to the said NIT and submitted his tender offering Rs. 91,00,500.00. When the tenders were opened a comparative statement was prepared. As per the comparative statement, amount offered by the petitioner at Rs. 91,00,500.00 was the highest. In the remarks column, it was remarked that tender of the petitioner was regular. 91,00,500.00. When the tenders were opened a comparative statement was prepared. As per the comparative statement, amount offered by the petitioner at Rs. 91,00,500.00 was the highest. In the remarks column, it was remarked that tender of the petitioner was regular. In the column-"Financial Soundness Certificate", it was marked-"Okay". Tenderer No. 2, Sri Borsing Teron had offered Rs. 89,00,000.00, which was the second highest bid. His tender was also found to be regular. Sri Purno Ronghang was the third tenderer, whose offer was Rs. 78,05,081.00, which was the third highest bid. His tender was also found to be regular. Lastly, Sri Rajen Teron, i.e., respondent No. 8 was the fourth tenderer and his offered amount was Rs. 57,44,050.00. His tender was also found to be regular. There is a hand-written note on the left hand side of the comparative statement stating the following-"Comparative Statement approved and work settled at highest bidder rate with Serial No. 4". From the comparative statement, it is seen that the settled amount of the Gate for the year 2018-2019, i.e., the previous year was Rs. 72,00,500.00 and for the current year, i.e.,2019-20, the Government value of the Gate was fixed at Rs. 57,44,050.00. 5. It is stated that though consequential settlement order was issued to respondent No. 8, copy of the same was not furnished to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed, seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 6.1. This Court by order dated 29.03.2019, had issued notice and stayed settlement of the Gate for the year 2019-2020 in favour of respondent No. 8, giving liberty to the Council to make interim arrangement to run the Gate. Relevant portion of the order dated 29.03.2019 is extracted hereunder:- "Matter relates to settlement of Ranaima Entry Tax Gate (Gate) for the year 2019-2020. From the comparative statement prepared by the tendering authority, it is seen that bid offered by the petitioner at Serial No.1 was found to be valid and highest at Rs. 91,00,500.00 whereas that of respondent No.8 though found valid was the fourth highest bidder at Rs. 57,44,500.00. Petitioner has complained that notwithstanding the highest bid of the petitioner, settlement has been made in favour of respondent No.8. Despite request by the petitioner, he has not been furnished with a copy of the settlement order. Prima facie, such a settlement may not be justified. Issue notice, returnable four weeks. Mr. 57,44,500.00. Petitioner has complained that notwithstanding the highest bid of the petitioner, settlement has been made in favour of respondent No.8. Despite request by the petitioner, he has not been furnished with a copy of the settlement order. Prima facie, such a settlement may not be justified. Issue notice, returnable four weeks. Mr. Chutia accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4,6 and 7 whereas Ms. R.B. Borah, learned Govt. Advocate appears for respondent No.5. Extra copies within three days. Notice to respondent No.8 by registered post with AD. Steps within three days. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, settlement of the Gate for the year 2019-2020 if made in favour of respondent No.8 shall remain stayed. Pendency of this petition shall not be a bar for the tendering authority to reconsider grant of settlement. Till the next date, KAAC may make interim arrangement to run the Gate" 7. In the hearing which took place on 19.06.2019, the following order was passed:- "Matter relates to settlement of Ranaima Entry Tax Gate, pursuant to NIT dated 31.01.2019. Petitioner had offered Rs. 91,00,500.00, whereas, respondent No. 8 had offered Rs. 57,44,500.00. In the comparative statement, it was earmarked that tender of the petitioner was regular and amount offered was highest. In respect of respondent No. 8, it was also earmarked that his tender was regular. However, it appears that there were two other bidders above respondent No. 8. Be that as it may, Ranaima Entry Tax Gate was settled with respondent No. 8 at the bid value offered by him, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. In the affidavit filed by Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC), stand taken is that petitioner is not financially sound. Bank certificate furnished by the petitioner does not disclose financial capability to the extent of bid offered. On a query by the Court, Mr Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that in his affidavit he has not annexed financial soundness certificate issued by a nationalized bank in terms of Clause-70, though he submits that the entire settled amount has been deposited by him. Be that as it may, Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to examine the record, more particularly the tender documents submitted by respondent No. 8. Be that as it may, Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to examine the record, more particularly the tender documents submitted by respondent No. 8. On the next date, Mr J Chutia, learned Standing Counsel shall produce the record, more particularly, the tender papers of respondent No. 8." 8. Petitioner filed an affidavit subsequently to bring on record order dated 31.03.2019, passed by the Officer on Special Duty of the Council settling the Gate with respondent No. 8 for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 at Rs. 91,00,500.00. 9. A common affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that under the Karbi Anglong District (Miscellaneous Tax and Tolls) Regulation,1983, the Council which has been set up under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India is empowered to levy tolls and taxes in the autonomous district of Karbi Anglong. It is in terms of such regulations that the NIT dated 31.01.2019 was issued. In paragraph-6 of the affidavits, it is stated that tender of the petitioner was rejected due to non-submission of original demand draft/banker's cheque of Nationalized Bank pledged in favour of Deputy Secretary, In-charge Taxation and for failure to furnish Financial Soundness Certificate equivalent to the amount offered. In view of rejection of the tender of the petitioner, the Gate has been settled with respondent No. 8 at the highest rate of Rs. 91,00,500.00 vide order dated 31.03.2019 as he was the only bidder, who had expressed his interest to operate the Gate at that rate. 10. Respondent No. 8 has also filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order of settlement dated 31.03.2019, he had deposited an amount of Rs. 62,40,500.00 on 31.03.2019 itself and Rs. 14,20,00.00 on 20.05.2019. Moreover, his deposit of earnest money amounting to Rs. 14,40,00.00 had been adjusted against the settled amount. Thus, respondent No. 8 had deposited the entire settled amount of the Gate. 11. Learned counsel for the parties have made their respective submissions, which are more or less on pleaded lines. 11.1. In addition, Mr Chutia, learned counsel has produced a bunch of papers relating to petitioner and respondent No. 8 in connection with the aforesaid settlement. Thus, respondent No. 8 had deposited the entire settled amount of the Gate. 11. Learned counsel for the parties have made their respective submissions, which are more or less on pleaded lines. 11.1. In addition, Mr Chutia, learned counsel has produced a bunch of papers relating to petitioner and respondent No. 8 in connection with the aforesaid settlement. That apart, he has relied upon two decisions, one of Gauhati High Court, reported in (Bikash Bora Vs State of Assam, 2003 2 GauLT 485 ) and the other of the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited Vs SLL/SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 . His basic contention is that terms and conditions of NIT are required to be complied with. It is for the tendering authority to decide, whether to waive or relax such condition. If such condition is not waived or relaxed no fault can be found on such action of the tendering authority. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 13. As would be evident from the above, facts lie within a very narrow compass. Matter relates to settlement of the Gate pursuant to NIT dated 31.01.2019 for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. As per the NIT, the Government value of the Gate for the current year is Rs. 57,44,050.00. For last year, i.e., for the year 2018-2019, the settled amount was Rs. 72,00,500.00. This is evident from the comparative statement. For the present year, four tenderers had submitted their bids. The tenderers and bid amounts are as under:- (1) Sri Dhaneswar Kathar (Petitioner) Rs. 91,00,500.00 (2) Sri Borsing Teron Rs. 89,00,000.00 (3) Sri Purno Ronghang Rs. 78,05,081.00 (4) Sri Rajen Teron (Respondent No. 8) Rs. 57,44,500.00 14. In the comparative statement, all the bids were marked as regular. While petitioner was the highest bidder, respondent No. 4 was the lowest bidder. Nonetheless, there is a hand-written remark on the left hand side of the comparative statement that while the comparative statement was approved the work was settled with the tenderer at Serial No. 4, i.e., respondent No. 8 at the highest bid value. 15. From the affidavit of respondent Nos. Nonetheless, there is a hand-written remark on the left hand side of the comparative statement that while the comparative statement was approved the work was settled with the tenderer at Serial No. 4, i.e., respondent No. 8 at the highest bid value. 15. From the affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 4, it is seen that the said respondents have taken the stand that tender of the petitioner was rejected due to non-submission of original demand draft/banker's cheque of Nationalized Bank and failure to furnish Financial Soundness Certificate equivalent to the amount offered from any Nationalized Bank. Though such a stand has been taken in the affidavit, it is not reflected in the comparative statement where tender of the petitioner was marked as regular. No note-sheet/order-sheet or order of the respondents have been annexed to the affidavit or placed before the Court from where it can be said that tender of the petitioner was rejected on the above two grounds. The above stand has been taken in paragraph-6 of the affidavit which has been sworn to be true to information derived from the record. As noticed above, Mr Chutia, learned Standing Counsel has produced two bunch of papers relating to petitioner and respondent No. 8, but no note-sheet/order-sheet or the concerned file has been placed before the Court, wherefrom it can be discerned that the tendering authority had applied its mind to the above aspects of the matter while they had rejected the tender of the petitioner. In fact, no note-sheet/order-sheet or order has been placed before the Court to indicate rejection of tender of the petitioner. While Bank certificate of the petitioner dated 11.02.2019, issued by the Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank sponsored by the State Bank of India (SBI) may not meet the requirement of Condition No. 17, in respect of the bunch of papers of respondent No. 8 also no such bank certificate is available. In fact, what is glaring in this case and as noted above is that there is no order rejecting the tender of the petitioner or that of the second and third tenderers. As per the handwritten note on the left hand side of the comparative statement, it was simply mentioned that while the comparative statement was approved, the work should be settled with Serial No. 4 (respondent No. 8) at the highest amount. As per the handwritten note on the left hand side of the comparative statement, it was simply mentioned that while the comparative statement was approved, the work should be settled with Serial No. 4 (respondent No. 8) at the highest amount. There is also nothing on record to show that any negotiation was held with the two tenderers above respondent No. 8 before issuing the settlement order in favour of respondent No. 8. 16. It is true that whether a condition of NIT is essential or not is a decision to be taken by the tendering authority and such decision is to be respected. It is equally true that it is incumbent upon the tendering authority to apply the same standard in respect of all the tenderers and should not apply different yardsticks for different tenderers. It is also true that the tendering authority would be bound by the decision taken by it, which decision must be supported by reasons given in the order itself or available in the contemporaneous record and cannot be improved upon by filing affidavit. 17. In the light of the discussions made above, Court is of the unhesitant view that award of settlement of the Gate in favour of respondent No. 8 is wholly arbitrary and consequentially illegal. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. 18. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 shall now to re-consider settlement of the Gate from amongst the available tenderers, who had submitted tenders pursuant to NIT dated 31.01.2019 on the basis of the comparative statement already prepared. Let such decision be taken within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to cost(s). 20. Record produced by Mr Chutia is returned back.