NIHAR RANJAN HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3420/2020 and Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2762/2020. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. D. Doley, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent no. 5 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

(2.) At the instance of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter had been heard at the 'admission' stage and it is seen that the subject matter of both the writ petitions being inter-connected, and arises out of the same cause of action, which is not disputed by any of the parties at the Bar.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2762/2020 had filed the said writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the legality of the order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. (respondent no.3; hereinafter referred to as 'AFDC Ltd.' for brevity) by which Teliadunga Krishnachigakur Fishery in the district of Sivasagar was settled with respondent no.6 for a period of 7 (seven) years. The petitioner in WP(C) 2672/2020 was the first highest bidder. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions that the petitioners were not informed about the rejection of their respective highest and second highest bid and the consequent settlement of the fishery with the respondent no.6, whose bid was lowest out of the four bidders. It is submitted that the petitioners in both the writ petitions came to learn about the settlement of the fishery in question with the respondent no.6, i.e. the lowest bidder upon receipt of a caveat filed by the respondent no.6, which was registered as Caveat No. 333/2020. Hence, it is submitted that as because both the petitioners were not provided with a copy of the impugned order, the petitioners could not annex the said order, but they have made specific prayer to quash the impugned order.