Compliance with essential conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is crucial for the validity of a tender, and subsequent offers made after the opening of tenders cannot be legally considered.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Can the State or its instrumentalities, in order to earn revenue, ignore the essential conditions of any Notice Inviting Tender (for short "the NIT")? In order to earn more revenue, should the State or its instrumentalities act contrary to the public policies? These are the moot questions, which this writ appeal has raised.

2. The settlement of Bothabeel Fishery, Sipajhar, (hereinafter referred to as "the fishery") in the district of Darrang, in favour of the respondent No. 3 for the period from 2003-2004 to 2009-2010 for lease amount of Rs. 26,88,400 by Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "the Corporation") is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

3. For better appreciation of the real issues involved in the present appeal, we place hereinbelow, in a nutshell, the admitted and material facts giving rise to this appeal: The Managing Director of the Corporation issued the NIT, on 03.04.2003, inviting Tenders for settlement of the fishery for the period aforementioned, the last date being on 21.04.2003. Two Tenders were, eventually, submitted, one of the tenders being on behalf of the appellant society and the other by respondent No. 3. While the bid amount quoted by the appellant Society was Rs. 51,00,000 the respondent No. 3 quoted Rs. 26,88,400. The NIT required the tenderers to submit, inter alia, Bakijai Clearance Certificate from the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the Tender form, inter alia, required the Tenderers to sign Tender form in the presence of a gazetted officer. The General Secretary of the appellant Society did not put his signature on the form in the presence of any gazetted officer nor did the Society submit Bakijai Clearance Certificate, the reason assigned for non-submission of the certificate being that the Society was a new one. On 07.05.2003, the appellant Society submitted a letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation stating, inter alia, that after offering bid amount of Rs. 51,00,000 the Society surveyed the surrounding areas of the fishery and came to learn that the fishery had been encroached upon and, hence, it was not possible to pay the revenue as quoted in the Tender document. By this letter, the appellant Society requested the Managing Director of the Corporation to treat its bid amount of Rs. 51,00,000 reduced to Rs. 29,00,000. However, when the settlement of the fishery was made in favour of the respondent No. 3 by order, dated 30.05.2003, issued by the corporation, the appellant Society, as writ petitioner, approached this Court to get set aside and quashed the settlement so made in favour of the respondent No. 3 on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant Society's Tender was valid and even if its reduced offer of Rs. 29,00,000 was not acceptable to the Corporation, the Corporation ought to have settled the fishery with the appellant Society for Rs. 51,00,000 inasmuch as the appellant Society was still willing to offer Rs. 51,00,000 but the, Corporation, for no valid reasons, refused to accede to the renewed request so made by the appellant Society and arbitrarily settled the fishery with the respondent No. 3. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, prayed, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to settle the fishery in favour of the appellant Society. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment and order, dated 21.07.2003, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

4. We have perused the materials on record. We have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. N. Saikia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. We have also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Corporation, and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that non-submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate was not an essential condition of the NIT and, particularly, when the appellant Society was a newly registered society, omiss