K. Lahiri, J. - (1.)PURSUANT to a Tender Notice, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 submitted their tenders for settlement of Garubandha Weekly Bazar under the Tezpur Mohkuma Parishad. The period of settlement was for one year commencing from 1.7.1984. Respondent No. 4 offered Rs. 60,000/ - whereas the offer of the Petitioner was Rs. 51,000/ -. The offer tendered by Respondent No. 4 was the highest whereas that of the Petitioner was the second highest. The difference between the two offers is of Rs. 9,000/ -. In the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner his produced before us the tender notice, which inter alia, states that after the settlement is made the tenderer found suitable and duly selected by the Mohkuma Parishad shall have to deposit 25% of the tendered amount or more as security amount for taking the lease of the Bazar. The tenders came up for consideration before the Executive Committee of the Mohkuma Parishad. It appears from the Appellate order of the Government that Respondent No. 4 enclosed an Affidavit along with the tender intimating that he was ready and willing to deposit in cash the security amount provided his tender was accepted. In other words, Respondent No. 4 offered to pay the entire security amount in cash instead of executing any mortgage and/or promissory note in favour of the Mohkuma Parishad. It appears that the tender of the Petitioner was rejected by the Mohkuma Prishad on the following grounds:
On examination of the tender of the highest bidder Shri Sukumar Das Bhowmick offering Rs. 60,000/ - was found to be defective as Shri Bhowmick had not mentioned in his affidavit in case he failed to deposit the entire amount at a time how the said amount would be recovered. As such the tender is rejected.

(Emphasis added).

It is thus seen that the tender of Respondent No. 4 was rejected on the ground that he did not mention in the affidavit how the security amount would be recovered if he failed to deposit the security money in cash. In other words, the ground for rejection was that Respondent No. 4's Tender was defective as he had offered to deposit the entire amount in cash but he did not mention what would be the consequence of his failure to deposit the cash amount after the tender was made. Respondent No. 4 appealed against the order of the Mohkuma Parishad under Section 138 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972. The Appellate authority, the State Government, allowed the appeal. It has been held by the appellate authority that the ground of rejection of the tender was untenable. It was further held that when Respondent No. 4 had expressed that he would deposit the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/ - in cash there could be no reason for rejecting his tender. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed upon setting aside the order of settlement made by the Mohkuma Parishad in favour of the writ Petitioner.

(2.)THIS writ application is against the appellate order. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the offer made by Respondent No. 4 to deposit the entire security amount in cash was in breach of the terms of the Tender Notice. However, what we find from Clause I of the Tender Notice is that the tenderers were informed that they were required to deposit " 25% or more " as security. As such, we find that the offer to pledge cash security of the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/ offered by Respondent No. 4 was in consonance with Clause I of the Tender Notice. On perusal of the Clause I, we are of the opinion that the Tender Notice intimated the tenderers that they could deposit 25% of the tendered amount or more. In pursuance of the advertisement, Respondent No. 4 offered to deposit the entire tendered amount of Rs. 60,000/ - in cash. It is, therefore, seen that the conclusion reached by the appellate authority that there was no defect in the tender and that the Mohkuma Parishad had committed error in rejecting his tender, is a correct finding.
The next contention of the Petitioner is that deposit of the entire amount in cash was in breach of Rule 28(2)(a)(vi) of the Assam Panchayati Raj (Administrative) Rules, 1973. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, a tenderer could under the rule, offer to deposit 25 per centum on his quoted amount in the tender for one year. Under the provision of the Rules, a tenderer could not offer cash security more than 25 per centum of his tendered amount for one year, It has been contended that in respect of balance 75 per cent, the tenderer is to undertake to execute either a mortgage deed or a promissory note in favour of the Mohkuma Parishad.

(3.)IN the instant once, we find that the Tender Notice issued by the Mohkuma Parishad intimated that the successful tenderer would be required to deposit with the Secretary of the Mohkuma Parishad cash security to the tune of not less than 25% or more on the quoted amount in the tender. Thus, the Mohkuma Parishad itself specified that the selected tenderer could deposit cash security to the extent of 25 per centum or more. As such, what Respondent No. 4 did by offering deposit of the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/ - in cash towards security of the settlement was strictly in terms of the Tender Notice and the Mohkuma Parishad could not have penalised Respondent No. 4 for complying with Clause I of the Tender Notice, set out by them.
;