Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. All the three writ petitions pertaining to settlement of No. 1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery, a 60% category fishery, which is required to be settled under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, with 100% actual fishermen groups, who are located in the district and neighbourhood of the fishery, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The case has a chequered history as follows. By NIT dated 19.1.2006, the Govt. invited tenders for settlement of the fishery for a period of 7(seven) years w.e.f. 11.3.2006 to 10.3.2013. On completion of the tender process, the settling authority, upon examination of the 4(four) tenders received in response to the NIT, declared that one M/s. Kachudola Society, despite being the highest bidder at Rs. 35,15,644/-, having not submitted, interalia, the most important certificate i.e. Neighbourhood certificate, was not entitled to get consideration for settlement. The fishery was settled with one M/s. Manash Society, at its bid value of Rs. 12,40,632/-. The settlement was put to challenge by M/s. Kachudola Society by filling a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1507/2006. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.3.2006, setting aside the settlement made in favour of M/s. Manash Society and the matter was remanded back to the settling authority for a fresh decision, after enabling the petitioner's society to furnish the requisite documents for want of which, its tender was rejected.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the settling authority once again examined the matter and permitted M/s. Kachudola Society to submit 3 (three) vital certificates and thereafter in consideration of those certificates and in view of its higher bid of Rs. 35,14,644/-, settled the fishery with it. In the order of settlement dated 15.5.2006, Clause-2 of the NIT requiring a tenderer to be of the concerned district was noted. Be it stated here that the fishery traverses through 3 (three) districts: 17.66% falls in Bongaigaon district; 76.30% falls in Goalpara district and 6.04% falls within Dhubri district. Be it also stated here that these three districts have been bifurcated from the earlier composite Dhubri district but the settlement process still vests with the district authorities of Dhubri district.

3. The aforesaid order of settlement dated 15.5.2006 was put to challenge by M/s. Manash Society in WP(C) No. 2501/2006. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 14.2.2008, holding that the settling authorities passed the order of settlement without making an enquiry or giving a finding in respect of the claim of M/s. Kachudola Society that it is in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The order of settlement having been set aside, the matter was again remanded back to the settling authority for giving a fresh decision. Pursuant to the judgment and order, the matter was considered again by the settling authority and by order dated 5.4.2008 the fishery was once again settled with M/s. Kachudola Society. That time also, the settlement was challenged by filing WP(C) No. 1566/2008. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2009, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to initiate fresh settlement process by issuing a fresh NIT with the following observation.

23. It is seen that even after 3 attempts, the Settling Authority has failed to resolve the issue that arise in the instant case and in the process, the settlement could not be made operational even 3 1/2 years after issuance of the NIT dated 19.1.2006. In the meantime, the parties have been litigating and despite two rounds of litigation, the impugned settlement granted in favour of M/s. Kachudola Society does not appear to be in conformity with the requirement of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules.

24. Considering the passage of time and the fact that more than half of the settlement period is already over, instead of remanding the matter for a fre