RAKHEB DAIMARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. M Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. No one appears for the respondent No. 7, the private respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the State respondents not selecting the petitioner as the successful bidder for running the Mushalpur Bi-weekly Market, for the 2022-2023 period, from 1/7/2022 to 30/6/2023, in pursuant to the Notice dtd. 17/6/2022, though the petitioner was the highest bidder.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that in terms of the notice dtd. 17/6/2022, the highest bidder was to be selected for running the Mus-halpur Bi-weekly Market. However, the 2nd highest bidder namely, the respondent No. 7 has been selected. He accordingly submits that the impugned order dtd. 16/8/2022 issued by the respondent No. 4, authorizing the respondent No. 6 to run the Mushalpur Bi-weekly Market for the year 2022-2023, should be set aside and a direction be issued to the State respondents, to settle the Mush-alpur Bi-weekly Market in favour of the petitioner for the year 2022-2023. He submits that the selection of the private respondent as the successful tenderer is not in terms with Condition No.11 of the Notice dtd. 17/6/2022, which required the State respondents to record reasons in writing for not selecting the highest bidder. He also submits that the petitioner will not change rates/tolls from vendors, beyond the rate fixed by the State respondents. He also submits that by accepting the bid of the petitioner, the State respondents stand to earn more money.