1. Heard Mr. S. S. Dey and Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation , appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Also heard Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. Pursuant to a tender notice, dated 01.06.2010, issued by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Corporation'), inviting tender for settlement of, amongst others, Darrow Meenmahal (i.e. Darrow Fishery) of Sivasagar district, the petitioner, the respondent No.3 and some others submitted their tenders and participated in the selection process. The tender box was opened on 05.06.2010. The petitioner's grievance is that though he was the highest eligible bidder and the respondent No.3 was found to be the second highest bidder, the respondent Corporation has not accepted the tender of the petitioner and settled the said Fishery, in favour of the respondent No.3, by means of the order, dated 30.07.2010, at the rate, which was quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks with the help of this application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the order of settlement, dated 30.07.2010, aforementioned.

3. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that in terms of the comparative statement, which has been prepared in the present case, the petitioner was, admittedly, the highest tenderer, his quoted rate being Rs.1,10,211/-, whereas the offer of the respondent No.3 was Rs.1,05,000/-, the respondent No.3 being the second highest bidder and the difference between their respective quoted rates being barely Rs.5, 211/-. Ordinarily, the settlement of the Fishery ought to have been made with the petitioner, he being the highest bidder. The State respondents have, however, settled the Fishery in favour of the respondent No.3 at the bidded amount of the present petitioner. Thus, settlement of the Fishery with the respondent No.3 does not cause any financial loss to the respondent Corporation.

4. The moot question, therefore, which arises, in the present case, is: whether the respondent Corporation acted within the ambit of law in making settlement of the Fishery in favour of the respondent No. 3?

5. Seeking to justify the act of settlement of the Fishery in favour of respondent No.3, Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, has produced the relevant records to show that though the petitioner was the highest bidder, he was found to be ineligible and since he did not remain eligible, the mere fact that he was the highest bidder could not have been made a ground to settle the Fishery in his favour.

6. It is not in dispute that if the petitioner, as a tenderer, was found ineligible, then, it is immaterial whether he was the highest bidder or not. The highest bidder, in order to be a selectee, has to be an eligible one too.

7. Pointing out as to what infirmity the petitioner's tender suffered from, Dr. Ahmed has pointed out that in terms of the conditions of eligibility, a tenderer is required to affix his photograph, which has to be duly attested by a gazetted officer, and if the tenderer is a Cooperative Society, the recent photograph of the person, authorized by the Executive Committee, duly attested by a gazetted officer. In the case at hand, according to Dr. Ahmed, the photographs, which the petitioner had submitted along with his tender documents, were not attested by a gazetted officer as was required under Clause 4.1.1 of the tender notice.

8. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S. S. Dey, learned counsel, has contended that attestation of the photograph, as stipulated in the tender notice, was not a mandatory requirement and, hence, the mere fact that the petitioner's photograph was not attested by a gazetted officer could not have been made a ground to dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document