The rejection of bids must be fair and transparent, and the duty to ensure livelihood does not justify arbitrary rejection of the highest bidder. Transparency and fairness are essential in the bidding process.

JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J. - Heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellants in WA 8/2021 (respondent nos. 3 and 4 in WA 27/2021) and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant in WA 27/2021 (respondent no. 6 in WA 8/2021). We have also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, leaned Additional Senior Government Advocate, representing the State as well as Mr. R. Borpatragohain, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in WA 8/2021 (respondent no. 6 in WA 27/2021) and Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in WA 8/2021 (respondent no. 1 in WA 27/2021).

2. In both these writ appeals, the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3420/2020 and WP(C) 2762/2020. WA 8/2021 is filed by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 3 in the writ petitions), and WA 27/2021 is filed by Babul Das, i.e. respondent no. 6 in WP(C) 3420/2020, in whose favour the settlement was made by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). By the order dated 18.12.2020, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order of settlement made in favour of Babul Das (appellant in WA 27/2021) and directed the authorities to make the settlement in favour of Dilip Hazarika (respondent no. 2)/writ petitioner in which he was the highest bidder. However, for sake of convenience and clarity, the facts which we would be referring here will pertain to WA 8/2021, with a reference to the other writ appeal , as and when it is required.

3. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was given by the Corporation on 18.02.2020. Bids were invited by the Corporation, only from the fishing communities as well as from Samabai Samities (i.e. co-operative societies) of fishermen, for settlement of lakes and ponds for the purposes of fisheries which were within the jurisdiction of the Corporation in various districts in the State of Assam. The bids were being invited for as many as thirty-six Beels Lake or more precisely a water body. . We are presently concerned with Teliadonga Krishnachia Kurjan Beel Min Mahal Fishery in the district of Sivasagar, of which the land and water area are 13.69 and 13.19 Hectors, respectively, and which is at item no. 35 of the said NIT dated 18.02.2020.

4. One of the important conditions in the NIT was that No tender will be accepted whose value is less than the minimum value mentioned against the concerned Min Mahal . The minimum value mentioned in the NIT for Teliadonga Krishnachia Kurjan Beel Min Mahal was Rs. 5,26,800.00 per year. Against the aforesaid Min Mahal there were four bidders, which are as follows:

(a) Dilip Hazarika

(b) Nihar Ranjan Hazarika

(c) Sanjib Das

(d) Babul Das

5. It was a two-bid process and all the bidders were first evaluated in the technical bid and only if they qualified in the technical bid their financial bids were to be opened. The technical bids were opened on 07.03.2020 and the financial bids were opened on 22.05.2020. It is an admitted position that all the four bidders mentioned above had qualified in the technical bid. The financial bids of the technically qualified bidders were as follows:

6. Even though the writ petitioner in WP(C) 2762/2020 (present respondent no. 2) was the highest bidder, the Corporation made settlement in favour of one Babul Das, who made the lowest bid out of the four bidders. In another words, the admitted case here is that instead of making the settlement in favour of the highest bidder, the settlement was made in favour of the lowest bidder. Aggrieved by the settlement, the highest bidder, i.e. Dilip Hazarika, and the second-highest