The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of transparency, fair play, and natural justice in processing complaints and reaching settlement decisions, particularly in the context of tender processes.

1. Both the writ petitions involving the same fishery, one seeking implementation of the settlement order and the other seeking interference with the same, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For convenience, the WHO No. 2796/2006 is described as the first writ petition, while WHO No. 3006/2006 is described as the second writ petition.

2. The tender notice dated 4,2.2006 was issued inviting tenders from the intending tenderers for settlement of the fishery called "55 No. Pakaria Meen Mahal" in the district of Nagaon for the period 2006-07 to 2012-13 (period ending 31.4.2013). In the tender notice it was indicated that the tender documents and other related information would be available in the office of the corporation. The minimum revenue was fixed as follows :

2006-07 - 2,01,000

2007-08 - 2,21,100

2008-09 - 2,43,200

2009-10 - 2,67,500

2010-11 - 2,94,300

2011-12 - 3,23,700

2012-13 - 3,56,100

Total Rs. 19,36,000

3. Both the writ petitioners along with two others submitted tenders with the respective bids as follows :

Petitioner in the first writ petition - 19,84,000

Petitioner in the second writ petition - 36,43,000

Sri Swapan Chandra Das - 19,17,000

Sri Raimohon Chandra Das - 19,10,500

4. Although, the petitioner in the second writ petition quoted the highest rate of Rs. 36,43,000, but, at the time of opening the tender, it was found that its tender did not a ccompany the earnest money and accordingly, it was found to be invalid. After such elimination of the second writ petitioner, the rate quoted by the first writ petitioner having been found to be the second highest with all valid documents and thus, it was the expectation of the petitioner that he would be settled with the fishery. However, no action having been taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition being WTO) No. 2068/2006 and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.4.2006 providing for disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner within 10 days. Thereafter, by the impugned communication dated 22.5.2006, the petitioner has been settled with the fishery for/the settlement period at the highest bid of Rs. 36,43,000. In response to the offer so made, the petitioner submitted his letter of acceptance and deposited kist money etc. However, inspite of observing the formalities, when actual possession of the fishery was not given, the petitioner i.e. the first writ petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition.

5. The second writ petition has been filed by the petitioner making a grievance against the aforesaid offer of settlement made in favour of the first petitioner. While entertaining the writ petition, an order to maintain status quo having been passed, the possession of the fishery could not be given in favour of the first petitioner. In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that, the earnest money in the form of call deposit amounting to Rs. 50,000 bearing No. 009454 dated 5.2.2006 drawn in favour of the Managing Director of the Corporation was in fact submitted alongwith the tender papers, but at the time of opening the tender, same was found missing. The petitioner lodged an FIR on 24.2.2006. Copies of the FIR and the call deposit have been annexed to the writ petition. The certificate issued by the bank certifying issuance of the same to the petitioner has also been annexed to the writ petition.

6. According to the petitioner, on the last date of submission of tender, i.e., 15.2.2006, there was a chaotic situation prevailing in the office of the corporation where the tenders were received, as some interested persons wanted to block the tender process itself. In such circumstances, the tenders could not be opened on that day and were opened on 24.2.2006. Be that as it may, the petitioner made representations for a decision in the matter as it was its case that the call deposit in fact accompanied the tender papers and the reason

Click Here to Read the rest of this document