IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the requirement of transparency and fairness in settlement procedures, the need for adherence to the tender process, and the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contractual agreements.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the AFDC.

2. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, inasmuch as, the subject matter in issue is same in both the cases. The petitioners are also the same in both the cases.

3. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 and the consequential order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC Ltd, who is the respondent No.3, by which the settlement of 44 fisheries, including the fishery run by the petitioners, have been cancelled. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the tender No.2/2022 and the impugned revised tender notice No.4/2022 issued by the respondent No.3, by which fresh settlement of the fisheries were to be made.

4. The petitioners’ case in brief is that pursuant to an NIT dated 07.07.2015, for settlement of the Borkona Fishery of Barpeta District for 7 years, a settlement order dated 28.08.2015 was issued by the respondent No.3, settling the Borkona Fishery with the petitioners from the financial year 2015-16 to the financial year 2021-2022, i.e., till 31.03.2022, for a total consideration amount of Rs.94,71,000/-.

5. During the settlement period, an order was issued on 05.12.2020 by the respondent No.3 with the approval of the Chairman of the AFDC, i.e., the respondent No.2, directing the management of the beel/fishery for 4 years, by way of Direct Management System, by engaging the petitioner No.1, namely Dinabandhu Nayak as Stakeholder Management and the petitioner No.2, namely Shri Arun Das -M/s Bampara Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. The order dated 05.12.2020 also stated that the management of the fishery/beel may be extended for another 7 years, subject to satisfactory management of 4 years against the target value of Rs.14,88,300/-per year. The order also stated that the Society had requested to merge the period of their settlement which was till the year 2021-2022 into the Direct Management System, for better management and enhancement of the livelihood of the poor fishermen of the Society, to compensate the loss incurred during Covid-19 pandemic and the loss incurred during the last 3 years. It was also stated that the arrangement made in the order dated 05.12.2020 was due to the norms and status of Covid-19 pandemic and financial crisis of the AFDC Ltd.

6. A Deed of Agreement for management of the Borkona Fishery in Public Private Partnership mode (in short ‘PPP mode’) was executed on 01.07.2021, between the petitioners and the AFDC Ltd.

7. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.3, 44 fisheries which had been settled under the PPP mode without inviting tender, were cancelled, as it was in violation of Section 254 of the Assam Financial Rules, which mandates settlement of a contract only through a tender process and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s 129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2001) 2 GLR 333.

8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 put the same under challenge in WP(C) 2920/2022, along with the tender notice No.02/2022 issued by the respondent No.3 for fresh settlement of the Borkona fishery. This Court passed an interim order of status quo dated 09.05.2022 in WP(C) 2920/2022. Subsequent to the above events, the respondent No.3 issued revised tender notice No.4/2022 for settlement of the same fishery, which was again put to challenge in the present writ petition. This Court, in it’s order dated 17.06.2022, directed the respondents not to finalize the tender pursuant to the revised tender notice.

9. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners challenge to the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 had been tagged along with a number of othe