IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in matters of public revenue settlements, the highest financial bid must be prioritized unless there are valid and justifiable grounds for rejection that comply with the applicable legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

The settlement of a Fishery to the private respondent is the subject matter of challenge in both these writ petitions. While the petitioner in WP(C)/3215/2021 claims to be the highest bidder, whose bid has been illegally rejected, the petitioner in WP(C)/3372/2021 contends that though its bid is higher than that of the private respondent, the same has been rejected on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Both the writ petitions being connected, those are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 19.01.2021 for settlement of the Dhipujijan/Garanga Garsag/Malia Group Fisheries in the district of Morigaon. The said Fishery is a 60% fishery and the period of settlement was for 7 years. The scheduled rate was also notified to be Rs.11,51,205/- per annum.

3. As indicated above, there are two writ petitions wherein challenge has been made to the settlement in favour of the private respondent. Twelve bidders had participated in the bidding process, including the petitioners and the private respondent. A comparative statement was made regarding the bids submitted by various bidders. Thereafter an order dated 08.03.2021 was passed by which the bid offered by the respondent no. 4 in WP(C)/3215/2021 was held to be the highest valid bid and accordingly, the settlement has been made in favour of the said respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that their bids have been rejected on extraneous consideration and irrelevant grounds and if their bids were considered in a proper perspective, the settlement could not have been offered to the private respondent.

4. I have heard Shri S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/3215/2021 as well as Shri H Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/3372/2021 whereas Shri DK Sarmah, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate represents the State respondents. Also heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the private respondent.

5. Shri S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/3215/2021 has submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 would show that the bid of the petitioner was rejected mainly on three grounds. Firstly, the Experience Certificate which was issued by the Fishery Extension Officer has been faulted with the remark that the same should have been issued by the District Fishery Development Officer (DFDO). The name in which such certificate has been issued i.e., the President of the Society is also questioned. The second ground of rejection is the Neighbourhood Certificate. The remark is that the Neighbourhood Certificate has not been issued by the concerned Revenue Circle Officer. Thirdly, it has been held that there was no attested resolution of the Society in favour of the President authorizing him to submit the bid. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as indicated above, there are two writ petitions wherein a challenge has been made to the settlement in favour of the private respondent.

6. Shri Buragohain, learned counsel submits that the price offered by his client, who is the petitioner in WP(C)/3372/2021 was the 8th highest. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 that the 100% Actual Fisherman Certificate belonging to SC community has been faulted on the reason that the same has been issued by the Revenue Circle Officer instead of the competent authorized officer. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such rejection is wholly unsustainable in law and therefore, the price bid of the petitioner was to be taken into consideration. Justifying his stand of filing the present writ petition in spite of the fact that there is another writ petition challenging the impugned settlement in favour of the private respondent which has been instituted by the highest bidder, S