JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. N. Borah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.5 in spite of service of notice. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the grant of settlement of the Nilambazar Market in favour of the Respondent No.5 for the year 2025-26 vide the communication dated 12.09.2025. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The facts of the instant case as it appears from the materials on record are that a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 10.05.2025 by the President, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad for settlement of the Nilambazar Market. The Government value of the said Nilambazar Market has been put at Rs.13,20,000/-. It is the mandate of Clause 12 of the said Notice Inviting Tender that the settlement value should not exceed 10% of the average settled value of the last three years of these haats/ghats/fisheries/pounds etc. 4. Pursuant to the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender, the Respondent No.3 issued a General Notice dated 03.07.2025 whereby the Government value of the Nilambazar Market which was put at Rs.13,20,000/- in the Notice Inviting Tender was increased to Rs.16,04,370/- and the Earnest Money was also re-fixed at 10% of the re-fixed value. 5. The Petitioner thereupon submitted his bid along with four other bidders. The Respondent No.5 had quoted Rs.21,04,300/- whereas the other four bidders quoted Rs.17,64,807/-. It is the case of the Petitioner that the bid so submitted by the Respondent No.5 was in violation to Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.05.2025 as well as Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025. It was also the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.5 failed to comply with Clauses 1, 15, 16 and 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.05.2025 but the Respondent No.3 vide a letter dated 11.09.2025 allowed three days time to the Respondent No.5 to submit the required documents which was not permissible under law. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner therefore has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide an order dated 25.09.2025 issued notice but was not inclined to pass any interim directions. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner therefore has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide an order dated 25.09.2025 issued notice but was not inclined to pass any interim directions. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the stand so taken is that it is a fact that the Nilambazar Market have been settled for the year 2025-26 with the bid value of Rs.21,04,300/- in favour of the Respondent No.5 as per the decision taken by the General Standing Committee of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad in the meeting dated 11.09.2025. It was further mentioned that the Chief Executive Officer, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad i.e. the Respondent No.3 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender for the settlement of the Nilambazar Market dated 10.05.2025 for the year 2025-26 and in response to the Notice Inviting Tender, several bidders have submitted their tenders including the Petitioner. Amongst the five tenderers, the Respondent No.5 offered the highest bid. It was further stated that on 11.09.2025, the General Standing Committee held the meeting in the conference hall of Sribhumi Zilla Parishad in connection with the settlement of the Nilambazar Market for the year 2025-26. The meeting was presided over by the Chairman, Sribhumi Zilla Parishad and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee. The said Committee reviewed all the tender documents and also the comparative statements so submitted and found that out of the five bidders, the bid value of the Respondent No.5 i.e. Shri Sachin Bardhan was found to be the highest bid i.e. Rs.21,04,300/- and after that the Standing Committee had taken a decision that as there is only one market in the Zilla Parishad level and in the interest of enhancing the own revenue of the Zilla Parishad, settlement of the market should be given to the highest bidder and accordingly, the Respondent No.5 was given the settlement of the Nilambazar Market for the year 2025-26 by the settlement order dated 12.09.2025. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 7. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bid so submitted by the Respondent No.5 was 10% above the tender value as was re-fixed on 03.07.2025 and on that ground, the bid of the Respondent No.5 was liable to be rejected in view of Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender as well as Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to Rule 47(1) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2022’) as amended w.e.f. 02.04.2025 wherein it is also mandated that the bid shall not exceed 10% of the average settled value of the last three years for the respective haats/ghats/ferries/fisheries/pounds etc. 8. In addition to that, the learned counsel had also referred to the settlement order made in favour of the Respondent No.5 dated 12.09.2025 whereby the Respondent No.5 was given an opportunity to submit the Police Report, the Tax Clearance Certificate of the ZP and AP level and attested passport photos of tenderer and guarantor as per the condition laid down in the NIT bearing Clause Nos. 1, 16 and 18. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this decision so taken to provide an additional opportunity to the Respondent No.5 to provide these documents is not a fair and transparent exercise of powers by the Respondent Authorities inasmuch as the submission of these documents were mandatory. 9. Per contra, Ms. N. Borah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department submitted that Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender, Clause 1 of the Executive Order and Rule 47(1) of the Rules of 2022 would not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the said provisions would only be applicable in a case where an average value can be assigned for the last three settlement years. She therefore submitted that there was no infirmity on the part of the Respondent Authorities in accepting the bid of the Respondent No.5 which was Rs.21,04,300/-. She therefore submitted that there was no infirmity on the part of the Respondent Authorities in accepting the bid of the Respondent No.5 which was Rs.21,04,300/-. As regards the non-submission of the documents i.e. the Police Report, Tax Clearance Certificate of the Zilla Parishad and Anchalik Panchayat level and attested passport photo of the tenderer and guarantor, the learned Standing counsel submitted that the concerned Respondent Authorities submitted that the relaxations can be granted taking into account that the Respondent No.5 was the highest bidder. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 10. From the materials on record as well as the submissions so made by the learned counsels for the parties, two points for determination arise for consideration: (i) Whether the bid of the Respondent No.5 was defective having quoted more than 10% above the Government value re-fixed on 03.07.2025? (ii) Whether the bid of the Respondent No.5 was defective on account of non-submission of the Police Report, Tax Clearance Certificates of ZP and AP level as well as attested passport photo of the tenderer and guarantor as per the Condition Nos. 1, 16 and 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender? FIRST POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 11. For the purpose of applicability of Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender, Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025 as well as Rule 47(1) of the Rules of 2002, there is a requirement of ascertaining the settlement values of the last three years of the Nilambazar Market. Upon ascertaining the same, the average has to be worked out and thereupon the rates so quoted cannot be above that 10% of the average settled value of the last three years. 12. In the instant case, none of the parties have placed before this Court that there was any settlement in respect to the Nilambazar Market in the last three years. Under such circumstances, without arriving at the average settled value of the last three years of the Nilambazar Market, the question of applying Clause 12 of the NIT, Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025 as well as Rule 47(1) of the Rules of 2002 does not arise. Under such circumstances, without arriving at the average settled value of the last three years of the Nilambazar Market, the question of applying Clause 12 of the NIT, Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025 as well as Rule 47(1) of the Rules of 2002 does not arise. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the rate quoted by the Respondent No.5 of an amount of Rs.21,04,300/- cannot be said to be in violation to Clause 12 of the NIT, Clause 1 of the Executive Order dated 20.05.2025 as well as Rule 47(1) of the Rules of 2002. This answers the first point for determination. SECOND POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 13. The materials on record more particularly the communication dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad reveal that the Respondent No.5 admittedly did not furnish the Police Report, Tax Clearance Certificate of the Zila Parishad and Anchalik Panchayat level as well as the attested passport photo of the tenderer and guarantor which are the requirements of the Clauses 1, 16 and 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender. The order dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad is self-evident that the Respondent No.5 did not submit these documents. 14. The stand so taken by the Respondent Authorities in their affidavit-in- opposition do not answer this allegations rather a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition only mentions that the Respondent No.5 was the highest bidder and the same is the sole consideration for granting the settlement in his favour. On the other hand, a perusal of Clauses 1, 16 and 18 categorically mandates that these documents are mandatory in nature and this aspect can also be seen from the very communication dated 11.09.2025 whereby the Chief Executive Officer had also observed that it was the requirement to provide these documents. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that without these documents, the Respondent Authorities were not justified in arriving at a conclusion that the Respondent No.5 was a responsive bidder. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that without these documents, the Respondent Authorities were not justified in arriving at a conclusion that the Respondent No.5 was a responsive bidder. In the opinion of this Court, taking into account the tender conditions as well as the communication dated 11.09.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad, the Respondent Authorities ought to have held that the Respondent No.5’s bid was defective on account of non- compliance to Clauses 1, 16 and 18 of the Notice Inviting Tender. This answers the second point for determination. CONCLUSION: 15. In view of the above determination, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.5 vide the communication dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Sribhumi Zilla Parishad in respect to the Nilambazar Market for the year 2025-26 stands set aside and quashed. (ii) This Court grants the liberty to the Respondent Authorities to take appropriate steps for settlement of the Nilambazar Market in accordance with the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and the Rules framed therein under. (iii) The instant writ petition stands allowed to the extent above. No costs.