Ajit Singh, C.J.

These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in WP(C) No.138 of 2013 and WP(C) No.328 of 2013. The appeals were therefore heard together and they also involve the same issue.

2. On 15.9.2013, Notice inviting tender (NIT) was issued for settlement of No.25/28/103/104 Dhipujijan/Garanga Garsag/Malia Group Fisheries. The NIT enumerated terms and conditions for the settlement. These terms and conditions also mentioned the documents, which were required to be submitted along with the tender.

3. As many as 10 tenders were submitted. The bid offered by Santosh Barman, on behalf of 5 No. Sonai Pt-III Co-operative Society, was the 1st highest whereas bid offered by Kandulal Mandal, on behalf of Katahguri Matshajibi Samabai Sammittee Limited, was the 3rd highest. And the bid offered by Jagadish Barman, on behalf of No.11 Part V Kollong Nadi Anchalik Meen Samabai Samity Limited, was the 9th highest. Since the 1st and 2nd highest bidders were not found to be eligible, their tenders were rejected and settlement of fishery was made in favour of 3rd highest bidder i.e. Katahguri Matshajibi Samabai Sammittee Limited.

4. The 2nd highest bidder felt satisfied with the decision of rejection of his tender. He therefore did not challenge the same.

5. The 1st highest bidder however felt aggrieved and filed WP(C) No.138 of 2013. His main ground was that despite submission of complete tender papers, the tender had wrongly been rejected. It is pertinent to note that he did not challenge the eligibility of 3rd highest bidder, whose tender was accepted. The 9th highest bidder too filed WP(C) No.328 of 2013 and prayed that since all other tenderers were ineligible, settlement be directed to be made in his favour. The objection of 9th highest bidder against 3rd highest bidder was that he did not submit photocopy of the Pan Card of Income Tax Department as per terms and conditions of NIT. His another objection was that the 3rd highest bidder did not file any certificate about 100% actual fishermen being in the neighbourhood of the concerned fishery. The State Government, on the other hand, defended its decision regarding settlement of fishery in favour of 3rd highest bidder. The 3rd highest bidder also replied to the objections taken by 9th highest bidder against him.

6. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has dismissed WP(C) No.138 of 2013 of 1st highest bidder on the ground that he was not eligible for settlement. Interestingly, the 1st highest bidder has graciously accepted the order passed by the learned single Judge and has not challenged the same. The learned Single Judge, however, agreed with one of the two objections of 9th highest bidder that the 3rd highest bidder did not submit photocopy of the Pan Card of Income Tax Department, which was the mandatory requirement and cancelled the settlement of fishery in his favour. The learned Single Judge also agreed with the decision of the State Government that even 9th highest bidder was not eligible for settlement of fishery and dismissed his petition. Since the learned Single Judge found that all the 3 stakeholders i.e. 1st highest bidder, 3rd highest bidder and 9th highest bidder were not eligible, he directed the State Government to issue fresh NIT for the settlement of fishery, in question. It is, in this background, the 3rd highest bidder has filed WA No.415 of 2013 and WA No.413 of 2013 and the 9th highest bidder has filed WA No.44 of 2015.

7. As already stated above, the 1st highest bidder has not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his petition. The 2nd highest bidder also never challenged the rejection of his tender. Therefore, now only 3rd and 9th highest bidders are in the field.

8. The only question, which calls for our consideration, is - whether in the fact situation of the case, the 3rd highest bidder had substantially complied with the terms and condition