Point of Law : A certificate issued by such an authority carries with it a presumption under Section 114 III.(e) – “That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 5561/2017 and Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) 6152/2017. Also heard Mr. R. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, representing State respondent and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the settlement holder of the fishery in question, namely, Pub-Jaluguti Cooperative Fishery Society Ltd., arrayed as respondent nos. 4 in W.P.(C) 5561/2017 and respondent no. 5 in W.P.(C) 6152/2017. None appears on call for respondent no. 5 in W.P.(C) 5561/2017.

2. As both writ petitions arise from same order, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appearing parties, the matter had been analogously heard. In both the writ petition settlement of fishery to the private respondent, namely, Pub-Jaluguti Cooperative Fishery Society Ltd., has been challenged and the petitioners are seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to settle the fishery in reference to the petitioners.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon had issued a “Notice Inviting Tender” (NIT for short) dated 13.02.2017 for settlement of No. 4 Sonai Nadi Part-II Min Mahal of Nagaon, fixing the minimum revenue of Rs.3,52,118/-. The said fishery is falls partly in Morigaon District and partly in Nagaon District from where it originates. It is projected that the said 60% category fishery (Min Mahal) is settled under the Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. It is projected that 6 (six) bidders had participated in the tender process. The bid of the respondent no. 5 in W.P.(C) 5561/2017 was the highest at Rs.7,51,105/-, and that the bid of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6152/2017 was second highest at Rs.7,00,000/-, but both the highest and second highest bids were rejected on the ground that the tender/bid was not accompanied with the call deposit receipt for a sum of 15% of the bid amount. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 5561/2017 had quoted the fourth highest bid of Rs.5,52,991/-, but his bid was rejected on the ground that the neighbourhood certificate was not issued by competent authority, i.e. Revenue Circle. Nonetheless, vide order dated 24.08.2017, impugned herein, the respondent authorities had settled the said fishery with Pub-Jaluguti Cooperative Fishery Society Ltd., although its bid was 5th highest for a sum of Rs.4,24,242/-. Therefore, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside and quash the settlement order dated 24.08.2017 and for a further direction upon the respondent authorities to settle the said fishery with the petitioners.

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Nagaon had filed his affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon (respondent no. 3) and claimed that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 5561/2017 ought to have deposited call deposit for Rs.82,949/-, being 15% of his bid value. In W.P.(C) 6152/2017, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department had filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondent no. 2, i.e. the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department, stating, inter alia, that the third, sixth and seventh highest bidder did not submit the call deposit for required amount and that the first and fourth highest bidders had nor deposited any call deposit for which their respective bids were held to be invalid. It was further stated that the second highest bidder i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6152/2017 did not submit the neighbour certificate from the competent authority, viz., the Revenue Circle. Therefore, the fishery was settled with the 5th highest bidder. In their affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 6152/2017 had taken a stand that the petitioner had submitted neighbourhood certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon (Annexure-4) and it was also stated that in the tender clause no such requirement was mentioned.

5. The sett