The rejection of a bid must be reasonable and in compliance with previous court orders, and settlement of public resources must consider the public revenue and statutory provisions for rate enhancement.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The validity and legality of an order dtd. 13/3/2018 passed by the Govt. of Assam was the subject matter of dispute in a writ petition instituted by the petitioner being WP (C) No. 1645/2018. The writ petitioner was successful in the said writ petition whereby an observation was made by this Court to settle the Fishery with the valid highest bidder in accordance with law. However, in spite of the said order vide the impugned order dtd. 21/2/2019, the settlement was denied to the petitioner and a direction was issued for a fresh tender process. It is the correctness of the order dtd. 21/2/2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Before going to the issue involved, it would be beneficial if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

3. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society consisting of 100% fishermen. A Notice Inviting Tender was (NIT) issued on 29/6/2017 by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta for settlement of No. 2 Chaulkhowa River Meen Fishery wherein the last date was fixed on 14/7/2017 which was also the date for opening of the tender. The petitioner Society being eligible in all respects had submitted its bid alongwith 7 other bidders. In the evaluation made by the competent authority, a comparative statement was prepared wherein only three numbers of bidders were found who have submitted valid tenders which included the bid of the petitioner. While the petitioner was under the legitimate expectation that the settlement would be done in accordance with law, an order dtd. 13/3/2018 was passed by the Department whereby the said Fishery was settled with one M/s Bampara Fishery Co-operative Society. The comparative statement however had termed the bid of the said party to be an invalid one because of lack of valid documents.

4. Challenging the said order dtd. 13/3/2018, the petitioner, as indicated above, had filed WP(C) No. 1645/2018. The aforesaid writ petition was duly contested and this Court vide a judgment and order dtd. 28/11/2018 had allowed the writ petition. While accepting the prayer of the writ petitioner, this Court had made the following observations:

"10) In view of the entries made in the comparative statement and the specific stand by the District Commissioner, Barpeta in his affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) 2753/2018 wherein he has admitted that the tender submitted by the respondent No.4 were incomplete and that the tender submitted by the above referred 3 tenderers were found valid for settlement of Fishery as per the terms and conditions of NIT, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the memo No. FISH-19/39/2017-Fishery/(eCF No.29169) dtd. 13/3/2018 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department had settled the No.2 Chaulkhowa River Meen Fishery in Barpeta District with the respondent No.4 namely, M/s Bampara Fishery Co-operative Limited for a period of 7 years with effect from the date of delivery of possession of Fishery.

11) Accordingly, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department shall now examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders for settlement of the No. 2 Chaulk how a River Meen Fishery to the eligible highest bidder in accordance with law."

5. The matter having been remanded back, the petitioner expected an order of settlement in its favour. However, vide the impugned order dtd. 21/2/2019, it appears that a further evaluation was done on the eligibility of the respective parties and none of the parties were found to be eligible and therefore a direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to take fresh steps for settlement of the Fishery in question. The petitioner alleges that the aforesaid order is absolutely unreasonable and is also in defiance to the direction of this Court dtd. 28/11/2028.

6. I have heard Shri S. Kataki, learned counsel with Ms. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. The State respondents are represented by