1. Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned State Counsel.

2. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta for settlement of the 4/66 Choulkhowa River Fishery. In the tender notice, it was specifically stated that the revenue for the first year of the Meen Mahal had been fixed at Rs.2,31,000/-. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioner and others had submitted their respective bids and upon evaluation of the bids, it was found that three of the bidders namely, Joydev Das, Gopal Sarkar and Narahari Das had submitted bids of Rs.1,15,55,555/-, Rs. 84,00,000/- and Rs. 81,00,000/- respectively. But the bids of the said three bidders have been rejected as it was found to be invalid. The present petitioner Ranglal Das was the fourth highest bidder having quoted a rate of Rs. 21,07,000/-. It is also relevant to take note of that after the tender notice of 18.12.2016, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta had written to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department providing the rates of the same fishery for the last three settlements. It had been stated that for the five years settlement from 01.05.2003 to 30.04.2008, the concerned fishery was settled with Rs. 92,612/- per year. In the subsequent settlement for seven years from 06.06.2008 to 05.06.2015, the fishery was settled at Rs. 1,17,243/- per year and for the period of six months from 06.06.2015 to 05.12.2015, the fishery was settled at Rs. 1,17, 243/- per year.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2016 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department, wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta was informed that there being a remarkable difference between the bids offered by the bidders, who had applied for the settlement of the No.4/66 Choulkhowa River Fishery, Barpeta district, it makes it difficult for the authorities to accept the bid offered by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to float a fresh Notice Inviting Tender.

4. Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent authorities defended the said decision contained in the communication dated 09.12.2016 by contending that the authorities came to a conclusion that the fishery in question could have earned much higher revenue for the department and therefore, a conscious decision has been taken not to offer the petitioner the settlement in spite of he being the highest valid bidder amongst all the bidders.

5. As already noticed, the bids of the first three bidders have been rejected to be invalid and thereby the petitioner being the fourth bidder and whose bid was accepted as a valid bid, becomes a valid highest bidder in the bidding process. As the contention raised by Mr. D. Nath, learned State Counsel is regarding a subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the fishery could have fetched a higher value, the records were called for to verify as to what was the basis for the authorities to arrive at such a conclusion. Accordingly, the original records of the settlement had been produced before the Court.

6. As per the note given by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department, it had been stated that the petitioner being the fourth highest bidder had offered an amount of Rs. 21,07,000/- and his bid was found to be valid in all respect as he has submitted all the required documents. The note also provides that the highest bidder did not submit the Society Registration Certificate, the second highest bidder did not submit the Society Registration Certificate and the third highest bidder, who is an individual bidder cannot participate in the bidding process as the bid in question is confined to the Co-operative Societies. In other words, the note clearly indicates that the bids offered by the three highest bidders have be