PURANA SONAI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel for respondent no. 9. None has, however, appeared for respondent no. 8.

(2.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order of settlement dated 29.03.2018, whereby, No. 165/166/167/168 Purana/Sonai/Sola/Garanga/Sukhraj Fishery in Morigaon district (the Fishery, for short) has been settled with the respondent no. 9 society for a period of 7 (seven) years at its offered bid value of Rs. 7,51,000/- per annum with effect from the date of handing over the possession of the Fishery, subject to observance of all usual terms and conditions as laid down in the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (the Fishery Rules, for short).

(3.) Mr. K. N. Choudhury assailing the said order of settlement made in favour of respondent no. 9 society has submitted that the Fishery ought to have been settled with the petitioner society as the petitioner society was the 2nd highest bidder which had offered its bid value at Rs. 7,52,000/- per annum. As the bid of the 1st highest bidder was found invalid for a number of reasons it is but natural to settle the Fishery with the 2nd highest bidder. All the documents required to be submitted for settlement of the Fishery, had been submitted by the petitioner society. Although 2 (two) of the certificates were not submitted initially but the same were submitted later on. Since submission of those 2 (two) certificates were duly acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon who issued the NIT and were before the settling authority on the date of consideration of the bids, the same should have been considered for settlement. To deny the settlement in favour of the petitioner society, the settling authority had referred to an order of this Court passed in a writ petition, WP(C) No. 1068/2015 which is of no relevance and consequence at all. The settlement of the Fishery in question in favour of the respondent no. 9 society who was only the 3rd highest bidder, has been assailed also on the ground that the respondent no. 9 society is not in the neighbourhood of the Fishery because in an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon it has been found that the respondent no. 9 society is at a distance of 7 (seven) kilometers from the Fishery whereas the same enquiry disclosed that the petitioner society is in the immediate neighbourhood of the Fishery. Thus, the order of settlement demonstrates sheer non-application of mind.