WP(C) 4216/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLR MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Society; Mr MK Ch oudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 and also Ms R. Chakrabor ty, learned State counsel. 2. This case pertains to settlement of No.18 Bondajan Fishery, hereinafter referred to as the Fishery, for which Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) dated 15.6.200 6 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner(Metro), Kamrup requiring the tenderers t o give their offers in sealed envelopes for consideration of settlement of the F ishery for a period of 7(seven) years. 3. The settlement of the Fishery is made under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, whereby it is provided that settlement is to be made by the Government by tender system. I t is further provided that the Government can make settlement, inter alia with s elf-help groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. 4. The conditions incorporated in the NIT are in consonance with the afores aid requirement of Rule 12 and, in the NIT also, it is provided that settlement could be made with, inter alia, self-help group consisting of actual fishermen r esiding by the bank of the fishery. 5. Mr AK Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submi ts that the petitioner Society is a registered fishery comprising of 100% actual fishermen and fishing is the only livelihood of the members of the society. It is further contended that the petitioner society is located in the neighbourhood of the subject Fishery. 6. The settlement order dated 19.8.2006 made in favour of respondent No.4 s elf-help group namely Rajabari Matshyajibi Atma Sahayak Got has been challenged by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the said self-help group is not constituted by 100% actual fishermen. Attention of this court is drawn to the Me morandum of the Samiti annexed with the affidavit-in-reply as Annexure-A dated 8 .9.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that Bishnu Ram Das and Sanjib Das, Secretary and Treasurer of the respondent No.4 self-help group have descri bed themselves as businessmen. 6.1 Accordingly, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that from the d eclaration made by the office bearers of respondent No.4, it can be inferred tha t the respondent No.4 is not constituted by the 100% actual fishermen and, accor dingly, the said group could not have been considered for settlement of the Fish ery in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules as well as the conditions incorporated in the NIT dated 15.6.2006. 7. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that no document cer tifying that the respondent No.4 group is located in the neighbourhood of the Fi shery has been made available and, on this ground also, the impugned settlement order is liable to be interfered with. 7.1 It is further contended that in the bid, the respondent No.4 has indicat ed their offer under the heading ’revenue’ as Rs.75,000/- only, and accordingly, they have failed to adhere to the requirement under Rule 12 of the Rules as wel l as the conditions incorporated in the NIT and on this ground alone there could not have been any consideration in respect of the offer of the respondent No.4 group. A further submission is made with regard to registration of respondent No .4 group on 27.6.2006, much after the issuance of the NIT on 15.6.2006 and it is contended that, at least on the day of the NIT, the respondent No.4 group could not have been said to be in existence to enable consideration of their offer. 8. Mr MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, on the other hand, submits that in so far as the declaration made by the Secr etary and Treasurer of the respondent No.4 group describing themselves as busine ssmen at the time of registration of the society is concerned, the said declarat ion was made only because the said two persons also had a petty business, but ac tually, both of them are fishermen and should be considered eligible to be a par t of the respondent No.4 group to meet the requirements of the NIT and Rule 12 o f the Rules. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respond ent No.4 that even the Secretary of the petitioner society is a film producer an d should not be considered to be an actual fisherman and if the offer made by th e respondent No.4 is to be considered ineligible on the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, the same ground could also be put to use to declare disentitl ement of the petitioner to obtain settlement in terms of the requirement of the NIT and Rule 12 of the Rules. 10. As regards the contention made that no certificate was made available de claring the location of the respondent No.4 group to be within the neighbourhood of the Fishery, it is submitted that the authorities have taken note of the rel evant consideration and there could not have been any disentitlement of the resp ondent No.4 group for settlement on the ground of non-furnishing of such certifi cate. 11. As regards the contention of respondent No.4 group having got itself reg istered only on 27.6.2006, 12 days after the NIT dated 27.6.2006, it is submitte d by Mr Choudhury that the respondent No.4 group has been functioning prior to t he date of the tender notice and got itself registered as a self-help group on 2 7.6.2006 only to have a recognition as a registered group. 12. It is further contended on behalf of respondent No.4 that the settlement has been made at their offer of Rs.75,000/- for the first year and 10% increase for subsequent years and this offer is far above the offer of Rs.33,000/- made by the petitioner society and in view of the higher revenue that is to be earned by granting settlement in favour of respondent No.4, the interest of the revenu e is protected and no interference is called for with the impugned settlement or der dated 19.8.2006. 13. The relevant records pertaining to the settlement have been made availab le by Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel for perusal of the court. It appe ars from the records produced that on behalf of respondent No.4 group, all the r equisite steps are being taken by Bishnu Ram Das, the Secretary of the said grou p. 14. Amongst the documents appended to the tender submitted by the respondent No.4, a certificate dated 28.6.2006 given by the Circle Officer, Panikhaity in respect of Bishnu Ram Das, the Secretary of the Tenderer group indicates that he has ’experience of fishing’, but the said certificate does not indicate him to be an actual fisherman. 14.1 It is already contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the Memorand um of the respondent No.4 Samity, Bishnu Ram Das, Secretary has himself describe d his occupation as businessman and not as actual fisherman. 14.2 However, what is noteworthy is that neither of the above issues pertaining to the vocation of the Secretary as well as Treasurer of the respondent No.4 gro up, appear to have been considered by the settling authority, as is revealed by the records produced before this court. 15. In view of what is noticed above, this court is of the opinion that in s o far as conditions incorporated in the NIT as well as in Rule 12 of the Rules p ertaining to giving settlement inter alia to self-help group consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the ’neighbourhood of the fishery are concerned, do not ap pear to have been taken note of by the settling authority. This was however a ve ry relevant consideration for settlement. 16. In view of above deficiency noticed in the settlement process, this cour t is of the view that the settling authority had not taken note of relevant cons ideration while making the settlement and had proceeded to make settlement in fa vour of respondent No.4 only on the basis of higher bid furnished by the said gr oup without considering as to whether the said self-help group fulfills the requ irement of Rule 12 of the Rules as well as the conditions incorporated in the NI T. 17. In view of above, the impugned order dated 19.8.2006 settling the No.18 Bondajan Fishery with respondent No.4 is liable to be interfered with. According ly, the matter is remanded back to the settling authority for fresh consideratio n in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules. Upon such considera tion, keeping in mind the relevant criterion as noticed above, the settling auth ority would pass fresh orders of settlement. 17.1 The fresh consideration would be made by the settling authority within a period of two months from today. The respondent No.4 may be permitted to contin ue with fishing in the Fishery in terms of the impugned settlement order, till a fresh decision is taken by the settling authority. However, it is made clear th at no fishing by respondent No.4 on the strength of the impugned settlement orde r dated 19.8.2006 shall be permitted beyond two months from today, by which peri od the settling authority would be expected to take decision afresh in terms of the present order. 18. In view of what is stated above, the petition stands disposed of. No cos ts.