Point of Law: It is settled position of law that power of judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

Both the writ petitions - W.P.[C] no. 870/2020 and W.P.[C] no. 1046/2020 - preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have laid challenge to an order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Secretary, Government of Assam, Fishery Department whereby a fishery named Brahmaputra Part-1 and Dibang River Fishery within Sadiya Sub-Division, District – Tinsukia has been settled in favour of the respondent Society viz. M/s Dibru Dangari Part-I Min Samabai Samiti Limited.

2. The necessary background facts leading to the institution to the two writ petition can be narrated, in brief, as under : -

2.1. By a Sale Notice published under the hand of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, In-charge, Sadiya Sub-Division, District – Tinsukia on 04.10.2019, tenders were invited under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 from eligible bidders for settlement of the fishery named, Brahmaputra Part-1 and Dibang River Fishery [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fishery’, at places, for brevity]. As per the Sale Notice, the last date of submission of bids was up to 02-00 p.m., 24.10.2019. In response to the Sale Notice, 5 [five] nos. of bidders submitted their tenders. The two petitioner societies and the respondent society were amongst those 5 [five] participant bidders. After receipt of the tenders, the Tender Inviting Authority i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia opened the tenders and after verification of the tender papers, forwarded the same, by recording its comments to the Tender Settling Authority under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 195, that is, the State Government in the Fishery Department as the Fishery is a 60% category Fishery. The Tender Settling Authority after scrutiny of the tender papers, passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 whereby the Fishery came to be settled in favour of the respondent society for a period of 7 [seven] years at its offered bid value of Rs. 25,97,000/- terming the respondent society as the highest valid bidder in the tender process. The Tender Settling Authority after scrutiny of the tenders of the participant bidders by the order dated 26.12.2019, had declared the bids of the two petitioner societies as invalid ones.

2.2. Assailing the settlement made in favour of the respondent society and aggrieved by the order of settlement dated 26.12.2019 whereby the Fishery had been settled in favour of the respondent society and the bids of the two petitioner societies were declared as invalid ones, the two writ petitions had been instituted seeking setting aside of the impugned order of settlement order dated 26.12.2019.

3. I have heard Mr. G. Khandelia, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 870/2020 and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 1046/2020. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents and Mr. D.J. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent society.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have assailed the order of settlement on the ground that the Tender Settling Authority had allowed the respondent society to submit a Bakijai Clearance Certificate after the last date of submission of tenders was over. It is their contention that the respondent society did not submit Bakijai Clearance Certificate with its bid in its name. Rather, the respondent society had submitted the Bakijai Clearance Certificate only in the name of the Secretary of the respondent society. Subsequently, the respondent society had submitted a petition on 07.12.2019 along with a copy of a certificate issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 06.12.2019 bearing no. TNB 2/2017. The certificate bearing no. TNB 2/2017 dated 06.12.2019 had stated to the effect that the previous Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued to the respondent society vide memo no. 211022019-001-2477680 dated 21.10.2019, got issued in the name of the Secretary of the respondent society instead of in the name of the