Also heard M r. Sk.N. Mahammad v. Nos.1 to 5

5. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, with refer ence to paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents as was required to be submitted as per the NIT dated 02-05-2011. However, in the comparative statement, it had been indica ted that the petitioner had not submitted Land Valuation Certificate and the cer tificate from the Bank. With regard to the certificate from the Bank, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was no re quirement as per NIT to submit certificate from the Bank and to fortify his argu ment, has submitted that as per the comparative statement, none of the tenderer s, including the respondent No.6, who was granted settlement, had submitted cert ificate from the Bank. He also submits that in the tender form itself, the petit ioner had indicated the documents that he had submitted along with the tender and one of the items mentioned was Land Valuation Certificate. It is his categor ical assertion that the petitioner had not withdrawn his tender and he was eage r to continue in the fray and with that purpose in mind, he had submitted his valid tender. He submits that manipulation had been resorted to as it would clea rly appear from the comparative statement where it has been pointed out that the petitioner had not enclosed Land Valuation Certificate. It is also his contenti on that no expert opinion is needed to notice that the signature appended in the so called withdrawal letter is a poor substitute of the signature of the petiti oner and if somebody goes to the extent of fabricating such a document, it is al so quite possible that the documents enclosed in the tender had been tinkered wi th. He has also placed before this Court a copy of the Land Valuation Certificat e dated 9/6/2011 which the petitioner had obtained from the competent authority in order to submit along with the tender. It is in this context the learned seni or counsel had submitted that granting of settlement to a bidder who was at Sl. No.33 is not sustainable in law and, therefore, the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 is liable to set aside and quashed and a direction should be issued to the authorities to consider the tender of the petitioner as a valid tender and to pass appropriate orders.

6. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, on the other hand, submits that one has to go by the records and records maintained by the official respondents would show that the petitioner had not submitted Land V aluation Certificate, a document which ought to have been submitted along with t he tender and, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondent authoriti es in rejecting the petitioner’s tender as irregular. He also draws the attenti on of the Court to the withdrawal letter annexed as Annexure-B to the affidavit of the respondent No.6 and submits that the same goes to show that the petitione r was not interested to run the market and as such the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the contrary should not be accepted by this Court.

7. Mr. Sk. Noor Mohammad, learned State counsel submits that so fa r as the Certificate of Bank is concerned, the same was not a requirement of NIT and none of the tenderers had submitted the said document and on that count, t he petitioner could not have been disqualified.

8. He also does not dispute that in the tender form the petitioner had indi cated the documents which he had enclosed with his tender and that one of the do cuments was Land Valuation Certificate. According to the learned State counsel, even though there is a mention of the nature of documents enclosed, it is quite possible that one may finally, due to inadvertence or negligence, fail or omit t o enclose the document.

9. It is in this context, he submits that official records of the responden t authorities ought to be accepted. The Land Valuation Certificate was not found along with the tender and therefore, in the comparative statement it was reflec ted that Land Valuation Certificate was not enclosed by the petitioner in his t ender and accordingly, his tender was rejected.

10. The learned State counsel, however, submits that it is doubtful that t he signature appearing in the letter of withdrawal, was, in fact, that of the pe titioner as the signature is not found to be similar with his signature appearin g in other documents as well as in the Vakalatnama filed in this case. He left t he matter to the discretion of this Court.

11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record as well as the records produced b y the learned State counsel. In the tender process, 35 persons had participated and a striking note 12. and feature of the tender process is that the tenders at Sl. Nos. 1 to 32 were found to be defective and also withdrawn in large numbers. In the affidavit of the respondent No.4, it was pleaded that withdrawal 13. application was received by the President of the Anchalik Panchayat in the prese nce of the members of the Settlement Committee. Significantly, it is not stated that the petitioner had himself come and delivered the letter. Who had presented the letter is also not disclosed.

14. A bare look at the signature appearing in the so called withdrawal lette r, on a comparison with other admitted signatures of the petitioner, satisfies t he Court that the same is not the signature of the petitioner. The petitioner ha d also submitted a representation to the Darrang Zilla Parishad on 19-07-2011 st ating that he had not withdrawn his tender and that some one else may have withd rawn his tender. The said representation was received on 20/7/2011.

15. The case discloses unusual features and this Court has come to t he conclusion that the petitioner had not withdrawn his tender. It is also not i n dispute that the petitioner had, in the tender, indicated that he had enclosed the Land Valuation Certificate. Bearing in mind the peculiar facts and circumst ances, an inference of someone committing mischief to the detriment of the petit ioner can be reasonably drawn. In this factual background, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves a chance for re-consideration of his tender . Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugne 16. d settlement dated 30-06-2011 made in favour of respondent No.6 cannot be sustai ned in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall within a period of 15 days from today submit the La 17. nd Valuation Certificate dated 9/6/2011 before the respondent No.5, and the auth orities will consider the tender of the petitioner in accordance with law and pa ss appropriate orders to settle the market in question within a period of 15 day s from the date of receipt of the Land Valuation Certificate. Till a fresh consi deration is made as indicated above, the respondent No.6, is, however, permitted to run the market.