IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent No. 2 Corporation to adhere to the tender conditions and undertake a fresh consideration of the relevant materials submitted by the parties in accordance with the law and the Division Bench decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC for respondent No. 2 and Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

2. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is regarding settlement of No. 58 Lao Pani Meen Mahal in the district of Nagaon. Tender Notice No. 01/2020 was floated by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation, Nigam Ltd., Guwahati (respondent No. 2) on 18.02.2020 for settlement of Meen Mahal for a period of seven (7) years staring from the financial year of 2020-2021 through an agreement. According to the petitioner, there were five (5) tenderers who participated in the bidding process and after qualifying in the technical bid, his bid was found to be the highest in the financial bid. Despite the same, the respondent authorities contemplated awarding the tender to the respondent No. 7, and therefore the petitioner filed the instant writ petition praying for setting aside and quashing the settlement of the Meen Mahal given in favour of the respondent No. 7 and for a direction to the respondents to settle the same in his favour for being the highest bidder. The writ petition was considered and disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2022 by setting aside the settlement issued in favour of the respondent No. 7 vide Memo No. AFDC/486/2020/121 dated 22.05.2020 while remanding the matter back to the respondent No. 2 to take a fresh decision in respect of the settlement of the Meen Mahal in terms of the NIT dated 18.02.2020 within a time frame of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

3. The said decision was arrived at by this Court by taking into consideration the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 8 & 27/2021 vide order dated 05.02.2021. Following the disposal of the writ petition, vide order dated 19.04.2022, the petitioner came to be settled with the Meen Mahal vide order dated 21.06.2022. The respondent No. 7 being aggrieved filed Writ Appeal No. 248/2022 against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by this Court in the writ petition. The Writ Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 01.06.203 by the Division Bench after coming into the conclusion that no discussion was made by the learned Single Bench for drawing a parity with the facts discussed by the Court in WP(C) No. 2762/2020 and WP(C) No. 3420/2020 which was affirmed by the Division Bench by a common judgment and order dated 05.02.2021 passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 8 & 7/2021 set aside the order dated 19.04.2022 and restored the writ petition for fresh consideration. That is how the writ petition has come up for consideration before this Court.

4. Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 22.05.2020 by which the Meen Mahal was settled in favour of the respondent No. 7 submits that the only reason why the tender of the petitioner was rejected was because the petitioner was found to have quoted an abnormaly high bid amount which was likely to cause lapses or default at the time of payment of revenue resulting loss to the fisherman engaged by the petitioner. The bid amount quoted by the petitioner was therefore found to be unreasonable and unlikely to be fulfilled in view of the ecological aspect of the Beel. The learned counsel submits that the same cannot be the ground for rejecting the tender of the petitioner while he being the highest bidder in the tender process. The learned counsel draws support to his submission by referring to the common judgment & order dated 05.02.2021 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A Nos. 8 & 27/2021 wherein it was observed that there was no reason to reject the highest bidder on account of apprehension of loss of revenue in view of Clause 10.1 of the tender condition which provides that the Corporation