JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing an order dated 28.10.2021 issued from the end of the respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 6 was directed to issue an order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 7 in respect of Simla Bazar (‘the Market’ for short) and a consequential order dated 09.11.2021 issued by the respondent no. 6 whereby the Market has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 7 at his offered bid value of Rs. 3,95,365/- for the Market. 2. The events leading to the institution of the writ petition can be exposited as under: 2.1. By a Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 6, sealed tenders were invited from interested bidders for settlement of a number of markets/Go-hats/Parkings/Par Ghats/Ferries/Cattle Pounds, etc. for the year 2021-2022 from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 under Jalah Development Block, Jalahghat. As per the Tender Notice, if the value of the scheduled rate for the concerned market, etc. was up to Rs. 50,000/-then the last date of submission of the tender documents at the office of the respondent no. 6 would be 20.06.2021 and if the value of the scheduled rate was above Rs. 50,000/-then the tender documents had to be dropped in the tender box kept at the Secretariat of the respondent Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) on or before 25.06.2021. 2.2. The Tender Notice had also set forth the terms and conditions for the competitive bidding process. One of the markets which was sought to be settled by the said Tender Notice was Simla Bazar (the Market) and the scheduled rate of the Market for the year 2021-2022 had been fixed at Rs. 3,85,365/-. 2.3. In response to the Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021, the petitioner and two other bidders submitted their bids by offering the following sums for the settlement of the Market: S. No. Name and Address of Tenderer Amount offered by Tenderer 1. Karuna Deury (the petitioner) Rs. 7,70,711/- 2. Rajib Basumatary Rs. 5,78,047/- 3. Rajesh Basumatary (the respondent no. 6) Rs. 3,95,365/- 2.4. Karuna Deury (the petitioner) Rs. 7,70,711/- 2. Rajib Basumatary Rs. 5,78,047/- 3. Rajesh Basumatary (the respondent no. 6) Rs. 3,95,365/- 2.4. After submission of the tender documents by the three bidders, the same were evaluated by the Market Settlement Committee constituted for the purpose, in a meeting held on 29.06.2021 and the Market Settlement Committee in that meeting also prepared a comparative statement by recording its remarks in the respective columns in respect of each of the documents required to be submitted by the bidders in terms of the Tender Notice. After preparation of the comparative statement, the same was forwarded to the office of the BTC Secretariat for according its approval. 2.5. Thereafter on 28.10.2021, the respondent Council had accorded its approval for settlement of the Market for the year 2021-2022 in favour of the respondent no. 7 at an amount of Rs. 3,95,365/- and the respondent no. 6 was accordingly directed to issue the order of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 7 and to execute a deed of agreement as per the terms and conditions laid down in the Tender Notice. Pursuant to the approval accorded by the respondent Council by its letter dated 28.10.2021, the respondent no. 6 had issued the order of settlement dated 09.11.2021 in favour of the respondent no. 7, thereby, settling the Market for collection of tolls at the Market for the period w.e.f. 09.11.2021 to 30.06.2022. 3. I have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) for the respondent nos. 2-6. As per the order dated 03.02.2022 of the Lawazima Court, the notice upon the respondent no. 7 was found to have been duly served, but none has appeared for the respondent no. 7 today when the writ petition is taken for adjudication. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the comparative statement finalised the Market Settlement Committee, it is evident that the bid value offered by the petitioner was the highest one and the bid of the respondent no. 7 was the 3rd highest bid. The comparative statement further indicates that the bid of the petitioner was responsive on all counts. 7 was the 3rd highest bid. The comparative statement further indicates that the bid of the petitioner was responsive on all counts. Despite the petitioner’s bid being the highest valid bid, the respondent authorities in an arbitrary manner and without any valid reason accepted the bid of the respondent no. 7 on the basis of a purported spot verification with regard to Market transactions and the SOPs relating to Covid-19 pandemic. According to Mr. Sharma, there was no spot verification. There is no question of causing any loss to the State exchequer of the respondent Council in the event of acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner since the petitioner had deposited his entire offered bid value in the form of a demand draft. The terms and conditions of the Tender Notice had further indicated that the successful bidder can charge rates at the Market only at the rates fixed by the respondent BTC authorities. Thus, acceptance of the bid of the respondent no. 7 whose bid was the 3rd highest is ex-facie arbitrary and guided by irrelevant factors. As such, the settlement of the Market made by the respondent BTC authorities in favour of the respondent no. 7 is liable to be interfered with. 5. Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department has submitted that the matter of settlement of the Market is within the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent BTC authorities and the respondent no. 1 has no role to play in the matter of settlement of the concerned Market. It is his submission that the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, are not applicable within the Sixth Schedule areas of the BTC. 6. Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has submitted that though no counter affidavit has been filed, the records of settlement are available with him. Based on the records, he has submitted that the Market Settlement Committee after receipt of the three bids, considered the same in the context of the prevailing conditions in the concerned Market and the Committee also took into consideration the then prevailing situation which arose due to Covid-19 pandemic. It was after spot verification, the Market Settlement Committee decided to accept the offer of the respondent no. 7 as it was nearer to the scheduled rate of Rs. 3,85,365/- fixed by the respondent BTC authorities. It was after spot verification, the Market Settlement Committee decided to accept the offer of the respondent no. 7 as it was nearer to the scheduled rate of Rs. 3,85,365/- fixed by the respondent BTC authorities. As the decision to settle the Market in respect of the respondent no. 7 has been taken by showing reasons it cannot be said that the decision to settle the Market in favour of the respondent no. 7 is arbitrary and invalid in any manner. He has submitted that a bid value of a much higher amount like that of the petitioner, is likely to have adverse effects in the Market. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials on record. I have also perused the records of settlement which has been produced before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the respondent BTC authorities. 8. The Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021 had contained the terms and conditions for settlement of the Market. As per sub-clause (a) of Clause 8 of the Tender Notice, a bidder with his tender documents was required to submit his offered bid value in the form of a demand draft. Apart from the demand draft, the bidder was required to submit certain other documents mentioned in sub-clause (b) to sub-clause (h) of Clause 8 thereof. Amongst such documents included the original land patta, a copy of the Jamabandi and a Land Valuation Certificate against mortgaged property. It has been set forth in Clause 11 of the Tender Notice that the competent authority shall make settlement with the highest bidder if all the necessary documents and Government Revenue are found in order. In case the settlement is not made with the highest bidder, the competent authority shall have to record reasons in writing for their decision. It has also been set forth in the said clause of the Tender Notice that the competent authority before awarding the settlement shall make necessary enquiry to ascertain the attending circumstances at the concerned Market and while doing so, the competent authority shall also keep in mind the public interest as to absurdity of the rates offered by the bidders. It has also been set forth in the said clause of the Tender Notice that the competent authority before awarding the settlement shall make necessary enquiry to ascertain the attending circumstances at the concerned Market and while doing so, the competent authority shall also keep in mind the public interest as to absurdity of the rates offered by the bidders. The Tender Notice has further prescribed that the successful bidder cannot charge anything more than the prescribed rates from the vendors in the Market who come to the Market to sell their crops and other items in the Market. Clause 12 of the Tender Notice has made it mandatory that the tender value offered by the bidder must be above the scheduled rate approved for the year 2021-2022, which in the case in hand was Rs. 3,85,365/- or otherwise, it would entail rejection of the bid. 9. From the comparative statement finalised by the Market Settlement Committee, available in the records, it is demonstrated prima-facie that the tender documents of all the three participating bidders including that of the petitioner, have been found compliant to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice as the Market Settlement Committees had recorded that all the bidders had submitted all the supporting documents with remarks in the affirmative in the respective columns. 10. In the comparative statement, the Market Settlement Committee had remarked that it had selected the 2nd bidder i.e. the respondent no. 7 (though his bid value was the 3rd highest) to be granted the settlement of the Market. It had remarked that the decision was taken after a spot verification of the Market transactions and keeping in view the SOPs relating to Covid-19 pandemic. But on perusal of the records of settlement, no spot verification report, if any was undertaken by the Market Settlement Committee or by any other authority for that matter, is found to have been available. As has been noted above, it is a condition in the Tender Notice, as contained in Clause 11 thereof, that the competent authority before awarding the settlement shall have to make the necessary enquiry so as to ascertain the attending circumstances in the concerned Market. As has been noted above, it is a condition in the Tender Notice, as contained in Clause 11 thereof, that the competent authority before awarding the settlement shall have to make the necessary enquiry so as to ascertain the attending circumstances in the concerned Market. If such an enquiry is conducted by the competent authority then the same shall have to be resulted in an enquiry report (spot verification report) in writing where the findings arrived at during such spot verification are recorded. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent BTC authorities has not been able to point out anything in tangible form regarding holding of a spot verification by any of the authorities under the respondent BTC at the Market. Thus, in such situation, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the remarks of the Market Settlement Committee made in the comparative statement was without any kind of spot verification at the concerned Market to ascertain the conditions. In so far as the question of not accepting the highest bid value offered by the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing in the records to indicate that there was some consideration given for rejection of the highest bid of the petitioner or the 2nd highest bid by the authorities concerned. 11. It is settled that a bidder who has participated in a competitive bidding process at least has a right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bid offered by him in response to a tender notice in a transparent manner and free from any hidden agenda and in that respect, he is entitled to be treated in a fair, equal and nondiscriminatory manner in the matter of evaluation of his bid. A bidder has an enforceable right to that limited extent before the Court and the Court can definitely examine the issue as to whether the petitioner has been treated unfairly or discriminated against. An obligation is also cast on the tendering authority to proceed with the matter in a fair, just and transparent manner while undertaking the exercise. 12. In so far as having adverse effects in the event of acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner is concerned, which prima-facie appears to be valid one at Rs. 7,70,711/- the contention is found unfounded. 12. In so far as having adverse effects in the event of acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner is concerned, which prima-facie appears to be valid one at Rs. 7,70,711/- the contention is found unfounded. The Tender Notice itself has set forth the condition that a bidder has to submit his offered bid value by way of a demand draft for the amount he has offered for settlement of the Market. The petitioner herein had offered his bid at Rs. 7,70,711/- and against his such offer, he had deposited a demand draft for the amount of Rs. 7,70,711/- in favour of the respondent BTC authorities. In such view of the matter, it is not open for the respondent BTC authorities to contend that in case there is failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the settlement amount during the one-year period of settlement of the Market, they would suffer loss as the offered bid value of the petitioner has already been secured by the demand draft, which is as good as liquid money, and the demand draft was already in the custody and possession of the respondent BTC authorities. 13. It is also not open for the respondent authorities to say that in case the Market is settled with the petitioner at an amount of Rs. 7,70,711/- there is possibility on the part of the petitioner as the successful bidder to charge higher rates from the vendors in the Market. The respondent BTC authorities themselves have set forth the condition in Clause 21 of the Tender Notice that the successful bidder would have to collect the tolls only as per the rates approved by the competent authorities. It is also a condition that a board mentioning the prescribed rates of the tolls so fixed by the competent authorities is to be placed at a conspicuous place in the Market by the successful bidder so as to make the rates visible to the general public. In case the successful bidder after settlement of the Market with him, is found to have charged rates in excess of the prescribed rates from the vendors, option is always available of the respondent authorities to proceed against him and take action as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to be executed by the respondent authorities with the successful bidder including an action for termination of the settlement. 14. 14. In this context, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jespar I. Slong vs. State of Meghalaya and Others, (2004) 11 SCC 485 , can be referred to. The State of Meghalaya owned a weighbridge at Morkjniange which it had decided to lease out to the contractors who were willing to take it on lease on yearly basis and for that purpose, it issued a notice inviting tender. When the tendering authority settled the weighbridge in favour of one of the bidders at Rs. 1.21 crore, the same was challenged before the High Court. It was held by the High Court that the bid, at which it was accepted, was speculative and predatory. When the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed that the income from the weighbridge was to be received from the fees charged for weighment of trucks which would pass through the route on which the weighbridge was situated. The trucks mostly used to carry coal and as per the relevant notification, the person operating the weighbridge, could only charge a sum of Rs. 30/-for a loaded truck and Rs. 10/- for an unloaded truck. In such scenario, it was observed that the fee to be collected from the transporters for weighment of their vehicle was fixed and it would not vary with the amount of bid offered by the contractor. The contract would not have any effect on the price of coal, since weighment charges were fixed by the Government and the contractor had no right to increase the same, thereby, to cause loss to the public. It has been held that the payment of the bid amount is purely a matter between the contractor and the State. As a matter of fact, obtaining higher revenue by accepting the eligible highest bid would only be in public interest because the State stands to gain more revenue in that way. It has also been observed that offering of the bid after knowing the commercial value of the contract is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the tenderer and no third party’s interest is involved in such a contract. It has also been observed that offering of the bid after knowing the commercial value of the contract is a matter left to the business acumen or prudence of the tenderer and no third party’s interest is involved in such a contract. If the State decides to give its largesse to the public it has an obligation to see that it fetches the best possible value for the same, provided it does not otherwise in any manner affect the rights of other persons. 15. The respondent authorities have also failed to show that before initiation of the competitive bidding process by the Tender Notice any range had been ascertained and the same had been published and disclosed to the tenderers so that the tenderers became aware before submission of their tender documents and before finalizing their bid values that in the event they submit their bid values above a particular amount the same would entail rejection. The respondent authorities had, however, made it specific in Clause 12 of the Tender Notice that any bid value below approved scheduled rate would entail rejection. But there was no upper limit prescribed by the tendering authority with the condition that if anyone offers a bid value over that particular amount the same would entail rejection. 16. It is also settled that an administrative authority like a tendering authority is bound by the norms, standards and procedure laid down by it for the tenderers in the tender notice and later on, non-adherence to such norms or standards or procedure, prescribed by it, on its part at the time of acceptance of the tenders would invalidate its action unless such deviation is based on some valid principle which is neither irrational nor unreasonable or discriminatory. In the matter of distribution of State largesse, one of the objectives is to secure the highest revenue for the State Exchequer. If it decides to accept a bid which is not the highest bid and is likely to result in a loss to the State Exchequer, it has to be on the basis of certain valid and rational principle. The judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent such arbitrariness, irrationality and unreasonableness. If it decides to accept a bid which is not the highest bid and is likely to result in a loss to the State Exchequer, it has to be on the basis of certain valid and rational principle. The judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent such arbitrariness, irrationality and unreasonableness. There is no whisper in the Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021 nor in the records of settlement that the tendering authority had laid down as a condition precedent that it would only accept a bid value which is nearer to the scheduled rate fixed by it for the Market. Fairness demanded that the tendering authority should have disclosed to all the tenderers beforehand that the bid value above a particular amount or above a particular percentage of the scheduled rate would not be accepted. It was only when the time for acceptance of the tenders came the tendering authority cited the reason that the bid value offered by the successful bidder i.e. the respondent no. 7 in the case in hand, was the nearest to the scheduled rate fixed for the Market and hence, it would be accepted. 17. In the light of the discussions made above, this Court is of the unhesitant view that in accepting of the tender of the respondent no. 7 whose offered bid value was the 3rd highest amongst the three participating bidders, by the respondent authorities ignoring the two higher bid values offered by the other two bidders including the petitioner, whose tender documents were also found prima-facie responsive in nature, in settling the Market, the respondent authorities were guided by irrelevant factors in the decision-making process which also had a negative effect to the State Exchequer. There was no public interest found involved in the decision-making process in awarding the settlement of the Market in favour of the respondent no. 7 at a much lesser settlement amount. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the orders dated 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 being arbitrary, are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. The same are accordingly set aside. 18. 7 at a much lesser settlement amount. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the orders dated 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 being arbitrary, are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. The same are accordingly set aside. 18. Consequentially, the respondent authorities are directed to revisit the matter of settlement once again on the basis of the records containing the tender documents of the participating valid bidders and to arrive at a decision on the settlement of Simla Market for the subsequent period up to 30.06.2022, as indicated in the Tender Notice dated 09.06.2021, by taking into consideration the observations made above. It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within 15.03.2022. 19. At this stage, Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has submitted that the respondent no. 7 is presently operating the Market. Therefore, the respondent no. 7 may be allowed to operate the Market till 15.03.2022. In view of the directions given above, the respondent no. 7 may be allowed to operate the Market up to 15.03.2022. But under no circumstances, the respondent no. 7 shall be allowed to operate the Market beyond 15.03.2022. 20. With the observations made and directions given above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.