WP(C) 6148/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. N.Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B.A hmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. T.J.Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. The writ petitioner had filed a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5861 of 2010 challenging the notice inviting tender dated 2.8.2010 issued by the Mana ging Director of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. inviting tend ers for settlement of, amongst others, a fishery known as Chepti . While notice of motion was issued on 01.11.2010 , this court indicated that if any order o f settlement is issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, the Managing Director, A ssam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd, the same shall be subject to such fu rther orders as may be passed in the writ petition. An order of settlement date d 30.10.2010 having been issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Develo pment Corporation Ltd. in favour of Abdul Rouf, settling the fishery in question for the period of 7 years from 2010-2011 to 2016-2017 at a total revenue of R s. 2,27,535/-, the present writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6148 of 2010 was file d by the writ petitioner. The writ petition being W.P(C) No.6148 of 2010 was filed on 12.11.2010 a nd there was an order dated 03.01.2011 directing to list the case along with W.P (C) No. 5861 of 2010, wherein challenge was made, as noted above, to the notice inviting tender dated 2.8.2010, on the ground that no wide publicity as is requ ired was given as a result of which the petitioner could not participate in the tender process. The said writ petition came to be withdrawn on 23.5.2011.While withdrawing, the learned counsel had submitted that he had received instruction s to withdraw the writ petition . In that view of the matter, as it appears now, there is no grievance of the writ petitioner with regard to alleged lack of p ublicity in issuing the notice inviting tender dated 2.8.10. In the present writ petition ,the contention of the writ petitioner is that the settlement of t he fishery was offered to one Md. Abdul Musabbir w.e.f. 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 f or a period of 7 years for an amount of Rs.3,14,600/- and this time around, the settlement came to be made at a far lower amount of Rs. 2,27,535-/. Mr. Dhar, le arned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the order dated 30.10.10. Mr.Dha r, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Md.Abdul Musabbir had fi led an application dated 8.7.10 praying for cancellation of the settlement order made in his favour before the authority showing his inability to run the fisher y as the yield of the fishery was not enough to enable him to pay the kist mone y and that he was suffering loss. Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the writ petitioner having chosen to withdraw the earlier writ petition, he can not challenge the order of settlement in this petition, he having not particip ated in the tender process. He further submits that though settlement was made w ith Md.Abdul Musabbir in the year 2005-2006 for an amount of Rs.3,14,600/-, Mus abbir had filed application dated 8.7.10 before the authority praying that his s ettlement may be cancelled as he was incurring loss. The Respondent-Corporation, on the basis of the said application dated 8.7.10, cancelled the order of settl ement made in favour of Md.Abdul Musabbir by an order dated 31.7.10 and thereaft er, notice inviting tender dated 2.8.10 was issued. Dr. Ahmed, with reference to the record produced by him, submits that 4 persons submitted tenders out of w hich tenders of 3 tenderers were found to be valid and accordingly, order of set tlement was issued to the highest valid tenderer. He submits that there is no il legality in the order of settlement and, therefore, the same does not warrant an y interference. Mr. T.J.Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4,while endorsing the s ubmissions advanced on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that the writ petition as it stands today is not maintainable though at the time, when the oth er application being writ application being W.P(C) No.5861/2010 was pending, the present writ petitioner had a subsisting cause of action. The challenge to th e notice inviting tender dated 2.8.10, having been voluntarily abandoned , this writ petition deserves to be summarily dismissed. He further submits that the fa ct that a settlement was made at a higher price on a previous term, may not by itself warrant a supposition that the present settlement has been made at a muc h lower price, as has been contended by Mr. Dhar. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The po sition that has emerged today is that the writ petitioner has challenged the or der dated 30.10.10 made in favour of respondent No. 4 though he has not particip ated in the tender process. So long as there was a grievance expressed with rega rd to the very initiation of the process of settlement by the notice inviting tender dated 2.8.10, the writ petitioner could certainly challenge the order of settlement. The challenge having been withdrawn, this court is of the considere d opinion that no right of the writ petitioner has been infringed in any manner. It is also noted that there were 3 valid tenderers and the settlement has been offered to the highest valid tenderer. The court also takes note of the fact tha t the earlier order of settlement came to be cancelled by the authorities at the initiation of the settlement holder himself as he was unable to continue to pa y the kist because the yield of the fishery was not sufficient. In view of the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that th e writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.