MOTIOR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to a notice, dated 30. 05. 2008, issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Chief Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Zilla Parishad, Bongaigaon, inviting tenders for settlement of Lengitishinga Daily Market, the petitioner too participated in the tender process and his offer was found to be not only valid, but also the highest, his offered value being Rs. 1,41,575/ -. Respondent No. 3, however, settled the said market with the respondent No. 4, i. e. , the private respondent herein, on an offered value of Rs. 1,11,000/ -. The petitioner's grievance is that though he was the highest valid tenderer, the market was not settled with him and, instead thereof, the market was settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the respondent No. 3 without obtaining prior and formal approval of the Government as is required under Rule 47 (10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002.

(2.) HEARD Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was found to be the highest valid tenderer and yet the market has been settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 at a bid value, which was lower than what was offered by the petitioner. The short question, therefore, which falls for determination, is this: whether settlement of the market, in question, in favour of the petitioner can be treated as valid despite the fact that before making the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4, no approval, as envisaged by Rule 47 (10) of the said Rules, was obtained from the Government.