Tender disqualification must adhere strictly to statutory rules, excluding arbitrary criteria. A co-operative society's corporate identity shields it from the personal liabilities of its members. Additionally, revenue demands for leased public land are unjust where the state fails in its duty to ensure encroachment-free possession.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The two writ petitions – W.P.[C] no. 10/2025 and W.P.[C] no. 706/2025, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution – are in respect of two separate fisheries, which are located in Barpeta district of Assam. The fishery involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 10/2025 is No. 81 Mandiakur Fishery and the fishery involved in the other writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 706/2025 is No. 75, 76 and 77 Rowmari Group Fishery [hereinafter referred to as ‘Mandiakur Fishery’ and ‘Rowmari Group Fishery’ respectively, at places, for ease for reference].

2. As an issue involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 10/2025 is related to the subject-matter involved in the other writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 706/2025, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final consideration at the request of the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions.

3. Mandiakur Fishery is a 60% category fishery and as per the provisions of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, as amended [‘the Fishery Rules’, for short], the State Government in the Fishery Department is the settling authority for a 60% category fishery. On the other hand, the Rowmari Group Fishery is a 40% category fishery and as per Rule 8 of the Fishery Rules, 1953, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner in case of Sadar Sub-Divisions and the Sub-Divisional Officers in case of other Sub-Divisions, as the case may be, is the settling authority for 40% category fisheries. Therefore, for Mandiakur Fishery, the State Government in the Fishery Department is the settling authority and for Rowmari Group Fishery, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner [presently, District Commissioner], Barpeta is the settling authority.

4. Before dilating on the issues involved, the factual backgrounds leading to the institution of the two writ petitions are required to be exposited first.

W.P.[C] no. 10/2025

5. By a Tender Notice dated 02.02.2024, the District Commissioner, Barpeta as the Tender Inviting Authority invited tenders from eligible bidders for settlement of Mandiakur Fishery for a period of seven years. In the Tender Notice, the annual yearly revenue of Mandiakur Fishery was mentioned as Rs. 30,000/- for the first year by the Tender Inviting Authority. As per the Tender Notice, the last date for submission of bids was 22.02.2024. In response to the Tender Notice, seven bidders including the petitioner society and the respondent no. 3 society, submitted their tenders. As per the proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, a 60% category fishery can be settled with special category of co-operative societies, non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and self-help groups [SHGs] consisting of 100% fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. Therefore, the tender process for Mandiakur Fishery was limited to such category of bidders. On receipt of the tenders, the Evaluation Committee constituted by the District Commissioner, Barpeta opened the tenders on 05.03.2024 and after scrutiny of the tenders and the documents submitted in support of the tenders, the Evaluation Committee prepared a Comparative Statement indicating about receipt or non-receipt of the essential documents, as indicated in the Tender Notice, along with the tendered value offered by the seven participant tenderers. As for the purpose of the settlement process involved in the writ petition, the details recorded in respect of all the seven participant tenderer