WP(C) 4390/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY The petitioner, who was one of the bidders pursuant to the notice inviting tende r dated 2.10.2010 for settlement of Rupaibali Min Mahal, Cachar, by the present petition, has challenged the action on the part of the respondent Corporation in settling the said fishery with the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 22.6.2010. The main ground of challenge to the said order of settlement made in favour of t he respondent No. 5 is that the respondent No. 5’s tender papers being defective no settlement order can be passed. I have heard Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Phukan, lea rned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Dr. B Ahmed, le arned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Banerjee, learned couns el appearing for the respondent No. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No. 5’s tender paper was found to be defective and pursuant to which the respondent Cor poration decided to issue fresh notice inviting tender, the respondent Corporati on subsequently ought not to have treated the tender papers submitted by respond ent No. 5 as in order and consequently ought not to have issued the order of set tlement as has been done in the instant case vide order dated 22.6.2010. The lea rned counsel further submits that no settlement order can be passed in favour a party whose tender paper is found to be defective. It is also submitted that sin ce the petitioner’s bid was the second highest the settlement ought to have been made in his favour, the respondent No. 5’s tender paper being defective. The le arned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of settlement dated 22.6.2010 i ssued in favour of the respondent No. 5 may to be set aside and the respondent C orporation may be directed to settle the fishery in favour of the petitioner, he being a valid tenderer and his bid being the second highest. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand, pr oducing the records, has submitted that initially a decision was taken by the re spondent Corporation for issuance of a fresh notice inviting tender as it was fo und that the tender papers submitted by the respondent No. 5 was defective on th e ground that he did not put his signature on page 5 of the tender paper. The sa id decision was, however, subsequently reviewed, as, such defect cannot be treat ed to be vital so as to reject the tender paper submitted by the respondent No. 5 and accordingly since the respondent No. 5’s bid was the highest the order of settlement was issued in his favour. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has also submitted that t he ground on which the earlier decision was taken by the respondent Corporation for rejection of the tender papers submitted by the respondent No. 5 i.e. not pu tting the signature on page 5 of the tender paper cannot be a ground for rejecti on of the tender papers. The learned counsel further submits that since his tend er paper was rejected on that count alone a representation was submitted by the respondent No. 5, which was accepted by the respondent Corporation and according ly the order of settlement was made in his favour, he being the highest bidder. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the partie s and also perused the pleadings of the parties and the records produced by Dr. B Ahmed, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 22.4.2010 issued by the respondent Corporation for settlement of Rupaibali Min Mahal initially for a period of one year i.e. 2010-11 subject to extension for a further period up to seven years, t he petitioner, the respondent No. 5 and another submitted their respective bids. The respondent No. 5’s bid was though found to be highest his tender paper was initially rejected by the respondent Corporation on the ground that he did not p ut his signature on page 5 of the tender documents . A decision was, therefore, taken by the respondent Corporation to issue a fresh NIT and accordingly a fresh NIT was issued. At that stage a representation was filed by the respondent No.5 praying for review of the decision contending inter alia that the ground on whi ch the tender paper was adjudged as defective being not material for the purpose such decision for rejection of the tender may be reviewed. The Corporation, the reafter, reconsidered the matter and having found that non putting of the signat ure in one page of the tender documents would not materially effect the bid of t he respondent No. 5, has decided to review its earlier decision and accordingly the respondent No. 5 being the highest bidder, the order of settlement dated 22. 6.2010 was issued. Before taking such decision the petitioner also filed an appl ication praying for settlement of the Min Mahal in his favour on the basis of th e initial tender papers contending that since the tender papers of respondent No . 5 was found to be defective the settlement ought to have been made in favour o f the petitioner. The question, which requires determination, is whether the tender paper of respo ndent No. 5 can be rejected only on the ground that he did not put his signature on page 5 of the tender documents though he has complied with all other conditi ons as stipulated in the NIT. On perusal of the records as produced by Dr. Ahmed it reveals that the only defe ct which was found is that the respondent No. 5 did not put his signature in pag e 5 of the tender documents which contains part of the terms and conditions for settlement. Except in page 5 the respondent No. 5 had put his signature in all o ther papers. The respondent No. 5 also submitted all the other documents as per the stipulation of the NIT. Non putting of the signature on page 5 which contain s part of the terms and conditions of the NIT would not, in my opinion materiall y effect the bid of the respondent No. 5 when he has complied with all the other conditions of the NIT. The tender paper submitted by a bidder cannot be rejecte d on the ground of not putting the signature in one of the pages. That being the position, no illegality has been committed by the respondent Corp oration in deciding to accept the tender papers submitted by the respondent No. 5 and consequently in issuing the order of settlement in his favour. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cost.