JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. This writ petition is preferred to assail an Order of Settlement dated 30.08.2025 whereby a market, ‘Hadurhat Dharmasala Dainik Bazar Dharmasala Part-III’ [‘the Market’, for short] has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 8 at his offered bid value of Rs. 2,35,730/-, disqualifying the bid of the petitioner, who also offered the same bid value of Rs. 2,37,730/-. 2. A Tender Notice was published by Dharmasala Gaon Panchayat on 02.06.2025 inviting bids for settlement of the Market for the Panchayat Year : 2025-2026 for the period from 01.07.2025 to 30.06.2026. In the Tender Notice, the Government value of the Market was fixed at Rs. 2,14,300/- and the earnest money deposit [EMD] to be deposited by the bidders along with their bids was fixed at 10% of the Government value, that is, @ Rs. 21,430/-. 3. In response to the Tender Notice, eleven nos. of bidders submitted their bids. The petitioner and the respondent no. 8 were among the eleven participant bidders. After opening of the bids, the Bid Evaluation Committee of Dharmasala Gaon Panchayat consisting of the Members of the Development Committee; the President; and the Secretary; examined the bids with regard to the essential documents prescribed in the Tender Notice and the Bidding Document. Upon evaluation of the bids, the Committee accepted the bid of the respondent no. 8 as the valid one for settlement. The bid of the petitioner was not accepted. Thereafter, the Order of Settlement dated 30.08.2025 came to be passed. 4. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 & 7; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2. 5. As per Order dated 11.02.2026 of the Lawazima Court, the other respondents have not entered appearance despite service of notices. 6. Two points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner to contend that the bid of the petitioner ought to have been accepted instead of accepting the bid of the respondent no. 8. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the respondent no. 6. Two points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner to contend that the bid of the petitioner ought to have been accepted instead of accepting the bid of the respondent no. 8. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the respondent no. 8 did not submit any Police Verification Report along with his bid and to canvas the point, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Comparative Statement annexed as Annexure-III to the writ petition; and secondly, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 had offered the same bid value, that is, Rs.2,35,730/- and also offered the earnest money in the form of demand draft for the amount of Rs. 21,430/-. But, only the bid of the respondent no. 8 was accepted. The bid of the petitioner was not accepted on the untenable ground that there was mismatch between the name of the bidder and the name of the person reflected in the demand draft. 7. Ms. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development [P&RD] Department has submitted that neither of the two points urged by the petitioner has merit. The Comparative Statement relied upon the petitioner to supplement his first point was not the final Comparative Statement. The final Comparative Statement was prepared after detail evaluation of the bids and the documents accompanying them by the Members of the Development Committee of the Gaon Panchayat, the President and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, which was the Bid Evaluation Committee. It was in the final Comparative Statement, all of them had subscribed signatures and seals, wherever applicable. As per the final Comparative Statement, the respondent no. 8 had duly submitted Police Verification Report with his bid. As regards the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Borah has submitted that the earnest money was deposited by the respondent no. 8 by way of demand draft in his own name. Though the earnest money was deposited by the petitioner by a demand draft, but the same was in a third person’s name. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record. 9. As per Clause 4 of an Executive Order bearing no. E-511528/55 dated 20.05.2025 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, no settlement of haats / ghats / fisheries / pounds, etc. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record. 9. As per Clause 4 of an Executive Order bearing no. E-511528/55 dated 20.05.2025 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Assam, no settlement of haats / ghats / fisheries / pounds, etc. would be awarded to a lessee who is involved in any kind of heinous crimes, extortion etc. By incorporating Clause 18 in the Tender Notice, it has been made mandatory for every bidder to submit a certificate regarding his antecedents from the jurisdictional Police Station. When the Comparative Statement submitted by the petitioner, annexed as Annexure-III to the writ petition, is looked at, it can be noticed that the said Comparative Statement bears three signatures namely, [i] Executive Officer, Dharmasala Anchalik Panchayat, Dharmasala; [ii] Assistant B.D.O. [W&C], Gauripur Development Block, Dharmasala; and [iii] Gaon Panchayat Secretary, Dharmasala Gaon Panchayat. In the said Comparative Statement, it was shown that the respondent no. 8 did not submit the Police Verification Report. 10. Au contraire, when the Comparative Statement annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 8 is looked at, it is noticed that it bears signatures of the three Members of the Development Committee, as well as the signatures of the Secretary and the President of the Gaon Panchayat with their seals. In addition, it also bears signature and seal of the President of the jurisdictional Anchalik Panchayat, Dharmasala Anchalik Panchayat. Taking note of the above aspects, the claims of the respondents in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department that the Comparative Statement annexed by the petitioner, wherefrom the petitioner has sought to draw support, is not the final Comparative Statement and it is the Comparative Statement which is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 8 is the final Comparative Statement are to be accepted. As per sub-section [2] of Section 105 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, the powers of examination and final acceptance of bids is vested in the Standing Committee of the Gaon Panchayat which consists of the Members of the Development Committee. By the Assam Panchayat [Amendment] Act, 2025, the State Government has transferred the Government markets which have settlement value of less than Rupees 5 [five] lakhs in a year to the Gaon Panchayat within the jurisdiction of which the market is situated. By the Assam Panchayat [Amendment] Act, 2025, the State Government has transferred the Government markets which have settlement value of less than Rupees 5 [five] lakhs in a year to the Gaon Panchayat within the jurisdiction of which the market is situated. As per the final Comparative Statement, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 had submitted the Police Verification Report. Thus, the point urged as regards non-submission of the Police Verification Report by the respondent no. 8 is found without merit. 11. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 had offered the same bid value of Rs. 2,35,730/- and offered the same earnest money of Rs. 21,430/- in the form of demand draft. The submission of the demand draft by the respondent no. 8 in his own name vis-à-vis the submission of the earnest money by the petitioner through a demand draft drawn by a third person had made a difference for the settlement authority to accept the bid of the respondent no. 8 and to reject the bid of the petitioner. 12. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities / agencies is well settled. Submission of a tender in response to a tender notice amounts to making of an offer which the State or its instrumentalities / agencies are no obligation to accept. A bidder participating in a tender process cannot insist that its tender should be accepted because its tender is the highest or the lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works. All that a participant bidder is entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of its tender. Award of a contract being a commercial transaction, is determined on the basis of the relevant considerations for such commercial decision. 13. Evaluation of tenders and award of contracts being commercial functions, principles of equity and natural justice are not applicable stricto senso. Award of a contract being a commercial transaction, is determined on the basis of the relevant considerations for such commercial decision. 13. Evaluation of tenders and award of contracts being commercial functions, principles of equity and natural justice are not applicable stricto senso. When a participant bidder assails award of contract to a rival participant bidder, the issues to be considered by the constitutional court are explained by the Supreme Court of India in Jagadish Mandal vs. State of Orissa , [2007] 14 SCC 517 , in the following manner :- 22.…… Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions : [i] Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’; [ii] Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. 14. In so far as public revenue is concerned, it cannot be said that by granting the settlement of the Market in favour of the respondent no. 8, there has been loss of public revenue as both the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 had offered the same price, Rs. 2,35,730/-. On that count, this Court does not find involvement of any public element to interfere with the decision of the respondent authorities in settling the Market in favour of the respondent no. 8. The petitioner has not been able to show that in what other manner public interest has been affected for settling the Market in favour of the respondent no. 8. 15. The law is well settled that the decision-making process adopted by the Settlement Authority in accepting or rejecting the bid of a bidder should not be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. A mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the tendering authority is not a reason for a constitutional court to interfere and the court has to exercise restraint and caution. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. A mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the tendering authority is not a reason for a constitutional court to interfere and the court has to exercise restraint and caution. The tendering authority who floats the tender and has prepared the tender documents, is the best Judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the tendering authority is to be accepted, unless the interpretation of the tendering authority is fraught with arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fide or perversity. As explained above, it is only when the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law would have reached such a decision then only an interference is called for. 16. Turning back to the facts of the case, it is found that it is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the earnest money at Rs. 21,430/- in the form of a demand draft along with his bid. It is the contention of the respondent authorities that the demand draft which was submitted by the petitioner towards deposit of earnest money was not in his name. The demand draft was drawn by one Mohibul Pradhani. The petitioner has sought for clarify that Mohibul Pradhani is an elder brother of the petitioner. It has been contended that such submission of the demand draft for the earnest money in the name of Mohibul Pradhani on behalf of the petitioner could not have made any difference for acceptance of the bid of the petitioner vis-à-vis acceptance of the bid of the respondent no. 8 and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have adopted the process of lottery to break the deadlock. 17. Admittedly, the bid of the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 was accompanied by a demand draft each for the amount of Rs. 21,430/- towards earnest money deposit. 8 and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have adopted the process of lottery to break the deadlock. 17. Admittedly, the bid of the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 was accompanied by a demand draft each for the amount of Rs. 21,430/- towards earnest money deposit. The object behind calling for deposit of earnest money in a tender process has been explained in Mega Electricals Dihand Edutech Infrastructure Private Limited and others vs. State of Assam and others , 2012 [4] GLT 723 , to the effect that the earnest money represents a guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled by the tenderer and it evinces the earnestness to bind the tenderer in bargaining as the process of contract goes through. The meaning ascribed to the word, ‘earnest’ in the Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition [of a person] is – sincere and serious in intention, a thing intended or regarded as a sign or promise of what is to come. 18. If in the case in hand the settlement authority had accepted the bid of the respondent no. 8 for the reason that the submission of the earnest money by the respondent no. 8 by a demand draft in his own name was intended for by the respondent authorities, then such a decision of the settlement authority cannot, by any stretch, be considered as an arbitrary or irrational decision creating a situation for exercise of the power of judicial review for interference. If the fact of submission of the earnest money by the petitioner by a demand draft drawn by a third party had, according to the respondent authorities, rendered the bid of the petitioner non-responsive then such an interpretation is to be respected and accepted as it would not fall in the category of decisions no responsible authority acting reasonably could have reached. Therefore, the challenge raised on that count by the petitioner also fails. 19. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned therein, the writ petition is found to be unmerited and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.