WA 422/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 pa ssed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5430 of 2010. The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited issued a notice on 3 0th July, 2010 inviting tenders for settlement of some fisheries including the T eliadunga Krishnasigakur Fishery. In response to the tender notice, five bids were made, including one by the appellant and one by Respondent No.4. It appears that Respondent No.4 was th e highest bidder and the second, third and the fourth highest tenderers did not submit a valid tender. The appellant was the lowest bidder. Under these circumstances, the tender was required to be awarded to Resp ondent No.4. However, the appellant moved an application through the Minister of Handloom and Textiles of the Government of Assam, which has absolutely nothing to do with th e Assam Fishery Development Corporation Limited. In this letter dated 31.8.2010, the appellant alleged that the signatory to the tender submitted by Respondent No.4 is an accused in a murder case and was in judicial custody for 90 days. It was also alleged that the case against the signatory is still pending. It was re quested in the letter that the appellant is prepared to take the settlement of t he fishery at the bid value submitted by Respondent No.4. On the body of the letter dated 31.8.2010, the Minister of Handloom and Textiles Department wrote a note to the Minister, Fisheries to the following eff ect :- Sri Dipanka Hazarika is a charge sheeted main accused in the Bijit Gogoi Murder case. Bijit Gogoi was the Vice-President of Sibsagar DCC at the time of his mur der. I would like to request you to settle the fishery with the petitioner. Apparently, acting on this letter dated 31.8.2010, the settlement of the fishery was made in favour of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No.4 filed a writ petition challenging the settlement of the fishery in favour of the appellant. This writ petition was al lowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal. It was held by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, that the appellant had tried to influence the settlement process and, therefore, had rendered himse lf ineligible for the settlement. As regards Respondent No.4, the learned Single Judge held that since it was already disqualified, the entire matter requires r e-examination and reconsideration by the State Respondents in accordance with la w. It appears from a reading of the judgment under appeal that none of the five tenderers are now eligible for the award of the tender advertised by the Fi sheries Development Corporation on 30th July, 2010. The reasons for this is that Respondent No.4 has been held to be disqualified by the Fisheries Development C orporation; the appellant has been declared disqualified by the learned Single J udge for exercising influence in the award of the tender; the remaining three te nderers were already disqualified since they had not submitted valid tenders. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client did not try to influence the tender process. He merely submitted a representation dated 31.8 .2010 through the local MLA (who happened to be the Minister of Handloom and Tex tiles) bringing it to his notice that Respondent No.4 was not eligible for the a ward of the tender. It is submitted that there is absolutely nothing wrong in th is. It appears to us that the proper course for the appellant to have follow ed was to make a representation to the tendering authority and not to the Minist er of Handloom and Textiles who had absolutely noting to do with the tender proc ess. While it may be coincidence that the Minister of Handloom and Textiles is a lso the local MLA of the appellant, it is not difficult to read between the line s and know why the appellant chose to go through the local MLA/Minister of Handl oom and Textiles in respect of the eligibility of Respondent No.4. To make matters worse, the Minister had not only forwarded the represent ation made by the appellant dated 31.8.2010, but had endorsed it to the Minister of Fisheries by requesting him to settle the fishery in favour of with the appe llant. This was totally uncalled for and amounts to nothing short of influence p eddling. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Single Judge in disqual ifying the appellant from the tender process. In so far as the eligibility of Respondent No.4 is concerned, we do not think it necessary to go into this issue. In our opinion, given the peculiar facts of th is case, the only appropriate course of action is to require the Fisheries Devel opment Corporation to issue a fresh tender. We do so accordingly and we expect t hat the Fisheries Development Corporation will now hold a fair and transparent p rocess of making a settlement of the Teliadunga Krishnasigakur Fishery by issuin g a fresh tender notice. We make no observation with regard to the eligibility or otherwise of th e appellant or Respondent No.4 for the purpose of the fresh tender. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Interim order passed automatically stands vacated.