The principle of constructive res judicata bars parties from raising issues in subsequent litigation that could have been raised in earlier proceedings. Additionally, technical defects in tender documentation, such as incorrect naming on a certificate, are curable if the substantive eligibility criteria were met at the time of application.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Medhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. I have also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 as well as Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8.

PREFACE:

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging various reports as well as orders passed which led to the order dated 15.11.2022 and further seeking a direction that the Group No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery be settled with the Petitioner for a period of 7 (seven) years as the Petitioner was the valid highest bidder.

3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, the Letter/Report No.DRF.5/2020/441-42 dated 29.09.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, the Speaking Order No.DRF5/2020 dated 14.09.2020 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, Report No.GRP(s)3/2019/339 dated 28.08.2020 have merged with the impugned order dated 15.11.2022. Under such circumstances, the issue involved in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 27.02.2020 for settlement of Group No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery (hereinafter referred to as the “fishery in question”) for the period from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The said Notice Inviting Tender stipulated various terms and conditions including the necessity of Bakijai Clearance Certificate to be obtained from the concerned Office of the Deputy Commissioner distinctly in the name of the society or self-help group.

5. The records further reveal that there were various litigations as regards the settlement in respect to the fishery in question. Pursuant to the various orders passed by the learned Coordinate Benches as well as the learned Division Bench of this Court, an order was passed on 17.10.2022 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department whereby the Respondent No.8 society was offered the fishery in question for settlement at Rs.1,90,05,000/- for 7 (seven) years at Rs.27,15,000/- per annum. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6885/2012 challenging the settlement so made in favour of the Respondent No.8.

6. It is further relevant to take note of that another writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.8 before this Court wherein the Petitioner herein was the Respondent No.3 in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7056/2022.

7. The case of the Respondent No.8 in WP(C) No.7056/2022 appears to be on account of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner i.e. WP(C) No.6885/2022 challenging the order dated 17.10.2022. It was the case of the Respondent No.8 in W