Statutory bar on bid value exceeding 10% of average settlement value is mandatory and requires strict compliance.

The Chief Executive Officer, Morigaon Zilla Parishad, issued a tender notice on 05.06.2025 for the settlement of the Moirabari Bi-Weekly Market for the financial year 2025-2026

Clause 12 of the tender mandated that bids must be within 10% of the average settlement value of the previous three years

The petitioner submitted a bid of Rs. 30,55,384, which the authorities rejected for being 10.00086% higher than the calculated average value (Rs. 27,77,600)

Respondent No. 7, along with others, quoted Rs. 30,55,360 (exactly 10% above average) and was selected as the successful bidder through a lottery

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his bid, arguing the excess was negligible, and alleged that Respondent No. 7 failed to submit mandatory documents like a Bakijai Clearance Certificate and a guarantor’s affidavit

1. Whether the rejection of a bid for exceeding the 10% limit prescribed under statutory rules and tender conditions is valid when the excess is negligible

2. Whether the settlement with Respondent No. 7 was vitiated by the non-submission of a guarantor’s affidavit and other mandatory documents

Rule 47(1) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002, as amended in 2025, which provides a statutory bar against settling tenders at a value exceeding 10% of the average settlement value of the preceding three years

Clause 12 of the tender conditions [p. 9]. Additionally, the court examined the procedural requirements of Clause 17 (mandatory clearances) and Clause 5/20 (security/guarantor requirements) of the tender notice

The Court held that Clause 12, being derived from a statutory rule (Rule 47(1)), is a mandatory condition that leaves no room for discretion

It rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding "negligible excess," stating that the extent of the violation (10.00086%) is inconsequential; the only relevant inquiry is whether the bid falls within or outside the 10% barrier

Regarding the documents, the Court perused the original records and found that Respondent No. 7 had indeed submitted the Bakijai Clearance and other tax certificates

On the issue of the guarantor's affidavit, the Court reasoned that because Respondent No. 7 offered his own landed property as security, and the value of said land (supported by Jamabandi and Non-Encumbrance certificates) was sufficient to cover the bid, the requirement for a third-party guarantor was not triggered

The second issue was answered in the negative, as the successful bidder complied with the essential requirements and provided sufficient personal land as collateral. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the settlement of the market with Respondent No. 7 was upheld