MANOJIT BHUYAN, J.

A registered 60% category Fishery in Dhubri district, called Gr. No. 7/93 Raidak Fishery, was settled with the respondent No. 6 vide Settlement Order dated 22.11.2016 for a period of 7 years. This order was put to challenge by the appellant as the writ petitioner in the related WP(C) No. 7198/2016. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.6.2017, prompting filing of the present appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, advocate. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned additional senior Government advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6. Mr. Dhar has also produced the office records in original for our perusal.

3. Challenge made to the order of settlement dated 22.11.2016 is basically on two grounds, namely, non-compliance of the conditions under clauses (j) and (k) of clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 17.12.2015 which clearly disentitled the respondent No. 6 to get the benefit of settlement. The list of documents as mentioned under clause 4 was required to be submitted along with the Tender. Sub-clause (j) pertains to furnishing document listing out the names, addresses and age of the Members of the Society and sub-clause (k) pertains to the requirement of certificate showing the distance/area of the society from the concerned Meen Mahal.

4. With regard to sub-clause (j) above, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that a representation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 15.9.2016 giving out the details of some members of the respondent No. 6-Society involved in other vocations and members who have since died. In respect of sub-clause (k) above, it is the case of the appellant that the neighbourhood/distance certificate dated 14.1.2016, which was submitted by the respondent No. 6 as part of the tender papers only mentions the distance of two villages out of the total 7 villages which comprises the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 society. It is stated that in respect of the distance/neighbourhood certificate of the remaining five villages, the same was applied for on 3.12.2016 and granted on 12.12.2016. It is contended that the last date for submitting tender being 18.1.2016, apparently, the respondent No. 6 did not submit the required neighbourhood/distance certificate in respect of the five villages within due time. In fact, the same was submitted well after issuance of the impugned order of settlement dated 22.11.2016. Submission made is that sub-clause (k) of clause 4 being an essential requirement of the tender process and the same not having been complied with by the respondent No. 6, no settlement could have been granted in favour of the respondent No. 6. Taking it further, it is contended that a mere perusal of the impugned order of settlement dated 22.11.2016 would go to show the undue benefit was given to respondent No. 6, in that, the bids of the second, third and fifth highest bidders were rejected as neighbourhood certificate, amongst others, was not submitted. This aspect, according to the appellant, clearly demonstrated that neighbourhood certificate is an essential requirement without which a bid would invite rejection. Analogy is drawn that as in the case of the second, third and fifth highest bidders, the respondent No. 6, although having quoted the highest bid, did not submit distance/neighbourhood certificate in respect of five villages out of the seven villages under its area of operation and, therefore, its bid invited rejection. Further submission is that the observation made in the impugned order of settlement that the respondent No. 6 had submitted all documents required for settlement of the fishery is, out and out, an incorrect statement not borne out of records. Re