B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. A common question i.e. whether the Notice Inviting Tenders dated 27.5.2009 for Nimati Kamalabari Ferry Service for the year 2009-2010 Can be set aside on the ground of non-publication of Ist NIT dated 19.1.2009 in the newspapers has been raised in all the writ petitions. Hence, all the there writ petitions were heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard argument of Shri M. Bhuyan, Shri B. Gogoi and Shri P. Bora, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners respectively. Argument on behalf of respondents were advanced by Shri A.K. Bhuyan, learned Counsel. I have also perused the pleadings of the parties as well as relevant files produced by learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. Facts necessary for disposing of writ petitions are that as usual the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Department, Dibrugarh issued NIT dated 19.1.2009 under memo No. ESF-17/2008-9/2667 for as many as 8 (eight) Ferry services (This NIT is hereinafter referred to as the Ist NIT'). In pursuance of the aforesaid Ist NIT as many as 9 (nine) tenders were submitted and the tenders were opened on 4.2.2009. In the previous year the Nimati Kamalabari Ferry Service (briefly N-K Ferry Service) fetched highest bid of Rs. 41 lacs. As per the Ist NIT the highest bid has been quoted at Rs. 74 lacs; followed by 65 lacs, 60 lacs and so on. However before the settlement of the N-K Ferry Service the sitting lessee Shri Gautam Kalita challenged the Ist NIT dated 19.1.2009 on the ground that the concerned authorities illegally refused to extend his lease for another three years. The said writ petition was registered as WP (C) No. 387 of 2009 and dismissed on 9.2.2009. Soon thereafter 5 persons lodged a common complaint before the Commissioner, IWT on 12.2.2009 alleging that N-K Ferry Service was being settled without any publicity. After this formal complaint the news was also reported in local dailies and another group of 10 persons also prayed for cancellation of Ist NIT, submitting a representation to the Principal Secretary, IWT Department on 7.2.2009. On the basis of these complainants/representations the Government issued another tender notice for the said N-K Ferry Service on 18.5.2009 under memo No. ESF-18/2008-09/375 superseding the 1st NIT. The aforesaid NIT dated 18.5.2009 was published in local newspapers on 27.5.2009. Petitioners are challenging this 2nd NIT being arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner that once tenders are opened and become public the Government is restrained and estopped from inviting fresh tenders, as it would be contrary to the concept of 'confidential bidding'. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if there was material irregularity in issuing Ist NIT the respondents ought to have recalled the entire NIT dated 19.1.2009, but instead of doing that the respondent have picked up only N-K Ferry Service for resale. In this way, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners it is an act of approbate and reprobate by the State that cannot be permitted. According to the learned Counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 2182 of 2009 and WP (C) No. 2162 of 2009 the 2nd NIT has been issued at the instance of sitting lessee and/or with pre-conceived mind to settle the ferry service with a particular person of its choice. It may be mentioned here that the learned Counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 2161 of 2009 do not subscribe to this view since he is the father of the sitting lessee. However, all the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners were of identical views that publishing tender notice in newspapers is not a sine qua non under the relevant rules and more particularly there was reason for withdrawing the Ist NIT since as many as 9 tenders were submitted and the highest being the offer of Rs. 74 lacs in comparison to previous bidding of Rs. 41 lacs. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that legalit