8. Shri M. Biswas, learned counsel for the beneficiary - respondent no. 6 submits that while the allotment order dated 15.07.2022 has been put to challenge, the decision making process which was in a Minutes of meeting is not put to challenge. The learned counsel therefore, develops an argument that the petitioner is not at all aggrieved by such decision making process and in that case, whether the writ petition is itself maintainable would be a debatable issue. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the scheduled rate of the market in question being Rs. 3,45,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Five Thousand), acceptance of the rate of the petitioner would apparently lead to a situation of chaos whereby the petty vendors and consumers would be put to grave distress as the only objective of the allottee would be to extract the amount as much as possible. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 also raises a question concerning the validity of the tender process inasmuch as one of the requirement of the NIT is to have a Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that as on date, there is no such mechanism and the entire process has been replaced by the GST and on this point itself, a case for remand is made out to have the tender process done afresh in accordance with law.
