The settlement of the fishery was determined based on compliance with tender conditions and the relevant provisions of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 5.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in settling the No. 22 Laipulia Meen Mahal with the respondent No. 5 vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2020 and also seeking a direction to settle the said Meen Mahal in favour of the petitioner society.

3. The facts, which can be discerned from a perusal of the pleadings, are that the petitioner herein is the Secretary of a society in the name and style of M/s Gohaingaon Bahumukhi Mahila Samabai Samittee Ltd. in the district of Dhemaji. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), being NIT No. DRF.8/Pt-II/2014-15/57 dated 23.10.2019 was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Dhemaji, inviting bids for settlement of various fisheries including No. 22 Laipulia Meen Mahal (for the sake of convenience referred to as “fishery in question”). In pursuance to the said NIT, the petitioner along with various other bidders had duly participated in the said tender process. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it relevant to take note of some of the conditions of the said NIT. From a perusal of the said NIT, it reveals that the public in general were notified about the bid documents and, in addition to the various documents mentioned in the NIT was the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department in the name of the Co-operative Society/Self Help Groups/NGOs. It was made clear that PAN Card issued in the name of any individual/office bearer of the Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO would not be accepted. Amongst the various conditions which had been stipulated in the said NIT, it was mentioned that a Certificate of 100% Actual Fishermen, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS) to the Fishermen Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO should be submitted along with the tender application. It was also mentioned that the members of the bidding fishermen co-operative society/Self Help Group/NGO must be of Schedule Caste Community or the Maimal Community of Cachar District of erstwhile Assam, which should be mentioned in the said certificate issued by the ARCS. Apart from the Certificate of 100% Actual Fishermen, there was also a requirement of submission of “Neighbourhood Certificate” issued by the concerned Revenue Circle Officer to the Fishermen Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO with clear indication of the specific distance of the Fishermen Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO from the fishery in question. In terms with Clause 3 of the NIT, the bidding Fishermen Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO was also required to submit a Fishermen Experience Certificate issued by the DFDOs indicating that all the members of the Fishermen Co-operative Society/Self Help Group/NGO have ample experience in fishing and related activities and they are fully involved in such activities. There are various other conditions in the NIT which, however, being not so pertinent for the purpose of disposal of the instant writ petition, this Court for the sake of brevity is not referring to the same. Be that as it may, the record reveals that in response to the NIT in question as many as five bidders, including the M/s Gohaingaon Bahumukhi Mahila Samabai Samittee Ltd., duly submitted their bids.

4. A perusal of the minutes of the Tender Advisory Committee meeting held on 29.11.2019 reveals that the Tender Advisory Committee opined that three bidders did not submit various documents as stipulated in the NIT. However, as regards the respondent No. 5, it was mentioned that the 100% Actual Fishermen Certificate issued by ARCS was not submitted. In case of the petitioner, it was opined that the documents which were submitted by th