JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. Assailing the decision of the respondent No 2 to issue a fresh tender for settlement of No. 15 Kaldia River Fishery situated in the district of Barpeta, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. This is the second round of litigation pertaining to the settlement of the aforesaid fishery and, therefore, the brief factual backdrop of the case may be noticed as follows :-

(a) The Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 06/09/2017 inviting bids for settlement of No. 15 Kaldia River Fishery for a period of 7 (seven) years. In the NIT dated 06/09/2017, it was mentioned that the minimum reserve price for the fishery for the first year of settlement would be Rs. 6,40,000/- and those tenders quoting below the reserve price shall be rejected.

(b) In response to the NIT dated 06/09/2017, the writ petitioner and the respondent no.4, besides other bidders had submitted their tenders. Upon opening the tenders, it was found that the respondent No 4 had quoted the highest amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-. One Shri Dilip Das had quoted Rs. 77,11,151/- which was the second highest, whereas Shri Abhiram Sarkar i.e. the Secretary of the writ petitioner society, having quoted a sum of Rs. 64,50,000/-, was the third highest bidder in terms of rates quoted by the parties.

(c) Upon preparation of the comparative statement, it transpired that there were several deficiencies in the tender submitted by the respondent No 4 represented by one Ananda Ram Das. Notwithstanding the same, by issuing the order dated 23-07-2018, the fishery in question was settled with the respondent No 4 for a period of seven years. Aggrieved thereby, M/s. Palahartal Schedule Fishery Cooperative Society Ltd., which was one of the tenderers, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No 5013/2018 assailing the order of settlement dated 23-07-2018. By judgement and order dated 09/04/2019 passed in WP(C) No. 5013/2018, this Court had set aside the order of settlement dated 23/07/2018, and remanded the matter to the Government to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. In terms of the order dated 09/04/2019 passed by this court, the respondent No 2 has examined the matter and thereafter, has issued the impugned order dated 06/08/2019 cancelling the settlement process initiated under the NIT dated 06/09/2017 and has decided to issue a fresh tender for settlement of the fishery. By the order dated 06/08/2019, it has further been provided that till such time, settlement of the fishery is made through a tender process, the fishery be allowed to be operated on daily basis through the highest bidder i.e. the respondent no. 4 at 5% above the minimum annual Government Revenue of Rs. 6,40,000/-, which amounts to Rs. 2600/- per day. The respondent no. 3 was accordingly directed to handover possession of the fishery to the respondent no. 4.

3. By referring to the order dated 06/08/2019, Mr. S. Kataki submits that the respondent no. 2 has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the bids of the highest and the second highest bidders were technically defective and, therefore, invalid.It has further been observed that the writ petitioner herein, which had offered the third highest amount of Rs. 64,50,000/- for seven years, was the highest valid bidder. Therefore, according to Mr. Kataki, the respondents were under a legal obligation to issue the order of settlement in favour of the writ petitioner. However, instead of doing so, the authorities have decided to cancel the tender process and go for fresh tender only to deny the settlement order to the writ petitioner.

4. By referring to the justification cited in the impugned order dated 06/08/2019, Mr.