WP(C) 4483/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Both these writ proceedings witness a challenge to the proposal of the Managing Director of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter for sh ort referred to as the Corporation) recommending settlement of No.7 Botha Beel l ocated in the district of Darrang, Assam for the financial year 2010-2011, in fa vour of the respondent/No.7 Botha Gathia, Mailata Dipling Fishery Co-Operative S ociety Ltd. (hereinafter for short referred to as the respondent-Society). I have heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No .4483/2010, Mr. A.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner in WP(C) N o.4888/2010, Mr. N. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Goswami, Advocat e for the aforenamed respondent-Society and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Couns el for the Corporation. In response to the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter for short referred to as the NIT) for settlement of the aforementioned Fishery by the Corporation, the wr it petitioners and the respondent-Society amongst others participated in the pro cess by submitting their tenders. As the exercise so initiated, reached the fin al stages, the impugned proposal was made recommending to offer the settlement o f the Fishery to the respondent-Society at the Bid offered by the writ petitione r in WP(C) No.4483/2010. The writ petition were thus filed assailing the same. The parties have exchanged their pleadings. Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Society without prejud ice to its rights and contentions has submitted that the writ petitions be dispo sed of at this stage by remitting the matter to the Corporation for a fresh eval uation/assessment of the tenders of the contending parties as well as others, st rictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the NIT and the law appl icable without reference to the impugned proposal and then to arrive at a decisi on to identify the most suitable tenderer for the purpose of settlement in quest ion. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners have submitted that in case the exe rcise afresh on the basis of the tenders on record are undertaken by treating th e impugned recommendation/proposal to be non-existent, they have no objection on the disposal of the aforementioned writ petitions, as suggested. In the above view of the matter, without offering any comment on the merit of t he challenge to the impugned proposal /recommendation, the instant writ petition s are hereby closed by remitting the issue of settlement of the aforementioned F ishery to the Corporation to be decided on a scrutiny of all the tenders present ly on record, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT an d the law applicable to the process. It is made clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Corporation would treat the impugned proposal/recommendation of th e Managing Director thereof be non est in law as well as on facts. As the term of the settlement proposed has commenced from the 01.07.2010, the process as ord ered should be completed as early as possible and preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. No costs.