GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 23:

1. Heard Ms. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent State. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.8 inspite of service being meted out upon the respondent No.8 by way of dasti.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the notification dated 03.07.2025 whereby the respondent No.7 had granted the settlement in respect of Mathurapur Weekly Market in favour of the respondent No.8 though the petitioner's bid was higher than that of the respondent No.8.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Comparative Statement enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

4. From a perusal of the said Comparative Statement, it is seen that the petitioner's bid was Rs.2,23,500/-, whereas the respondent No.8's bid was Rs.2,23,498/-. The reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner's bid was that the petitioner's bid was 10.00098% higher than the bid value, whereas the respondent No.8's bid was only 10% higher.

5. This Court has further taken note of Clause 12 of the notice inviting tender which stipulates that what is required to be taken into consideration is the average settlement value of the last 3 years plus 10%.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the bid value for the years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 in respect of the market in question which in total was Rs.6,14,520/-, and as such, the average for the last three years would be Rs.2,04,840/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that 10% of the average of the last 3 years would be Rs.20,484/-, and therefore, the bid to be eligible should have been quoted at Rs.2,25,324/- as per Clause 12 of the notice inviting tender.

7. Today, Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department has produced an instruction issued by the Executive Officer, Lakuwa Anchalik Panchayat. The said instruction dated 16.09.2025 is kept on record and marked with the letter "X".

8. From a perusal of the said instruction, it appears that as per the record received from the Chief Executive Officer, Charaideo Zila Parishad, Sonari, regarding previous years of market tender of Mathurapur Weekly Market, the Government value for the year 2022- 23 was Rs.2,00,500/-, and it was settled at an amount of Rs.2,04,520/-. For the year 2023-24, the Government value of the said Weekly Market was Rs.2,04,520/- and it was settled at Rs.2,05,000/-. It was the same as of 2023-24 because in the year 2024-25, no tender was published and it was conducted by the previous lessee. It was further mentioned that the Charaideo Zila Parishad had mistakenly held the three years' average settlement value at Rs.2,03,180/-, instead of Rs.2,04,840/-.

9. Taking into account the above, it is therefore clear that the petitioner's bid of Rs.2,23,500/- would come within the ambit of 10%, inasmuch as the average of the three years' settlement value is Rs.2,04,840/-.

10. Consequently, the impugned Notification dated 03.07.2025 by which the market, namely Mathurapur Weekly Market, was settled in favour of the respondent No.8 is interfered with.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://news.htsyndication.com/pressrelease/editrelease/pressagencylist.jsp?beatid=376&x=1756802647923)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.