The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and complying with previous court directions in issuing public notices for settlement of government assets, and highlighted the need to consider the validity of bids in light of the passage of time and changes in economic conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. In this writ petition, the NIT dated 9.1.2019 issued by the respondent No. 5, inviting bids for settlement of No. 11, Kalong Nadi Part-V Fishery has been challenged by the petitioner. For a just decision on the controversy raised in the writ petition it would be necessary for this court to briefly refer to the factual background of this case.

3. It appears from the record that sometime in the month of August-September 2015, the authorities had issued an NIT for settlement of No. 11, Kalong Nadi Part-V Fishery for a period of seven years. However, since only two bidders had responded to the said NIT, the tender process was cancelled and the Deputy Commissioner of the District, i.e., the respondent No. 5 had issued re-tender notice dated 23.12.2015 inviting fresh bids for settlement of the aforesaid fishery. In response to the NIT dated 23.12.2015 altogether six bidders including the writ petitioner herein had participated. Upon opening the bids, comparative statement was prepared and the same was forwarded to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, for necessary approval. As per the comparative statement prepared by the department, the writ petitioner No. 1 herein having quoted Rs. 5,51,001 as annual revenue, had emerged as the 5th highest bidder. Taking note of the quote submitted by the bidders, the fishery in question by issuing order dated 27.2.2017 the fishery was settled with the highest bidder, i.e., Pub Malaybari Maach Byabosayee S.S. Ltd. at the annual rate of Rs. 8,55,555. Aggrieved by the said decision the present petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 1820/2017 assailing the order of settlement, inter alia, contending that the authorities did not properly verify the issue of neighbourhood and location of the aforesaid society before issuing the order of settlement dated 27.2.2017. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 29.8.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 1820/2017, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by making the following observations

“14. From the aforesaid discussion as one of the vital conditions of the tender document with respect to the issue of the neighbourhood and location of the Society in “the district” wherein the fishery is located is not decided, in my opinion, this writ petition has merit. The same is in clear violation of clause 2 of the tender notice and under such circumstances, the impugned settlement order dated 27.2.2017 under Memo No. FISH 105/2008/Vol-1/1090 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department in favour of respondent No. 5-Society is liable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly, do. The fishery has since long remained unsettled, under such circumstances, the Government is to apply its discretion in taking a decision for arriving at a logical conclusion of the tender or in else may take steps as per law for the settlement of the fishery. However, it is made clear that the respondent No. 5 shall not possess the fishery as per the settlement order which is impugned in this writ petition inasmuch as the same is set aside and quashed.

15. The records produced by Sri S.R. Barua, the learned Government advocate be returned back to him.”

4. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018, the settlement holder, viz., Pub Malaybari Maach Byabosayee S.S. Ltd. had preferred Writ Appeal No. 265/2018 before this court which was disposed by order dated 26.9.2018 whereby, the hon'ble Division Bench had declined to interfere with the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. In the order dated 26.9.2018, the Division Bench had, however, observed that the settling authority was to take the tender process to its logical end on the basis of the