WP(C) 3659/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. B.D. AGARWAL The writ petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.7.2011 issued by the Manag ing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (AFDC) settling the K haloi Beel fishery in favour of the respondent No.6 namely, Sri Sanjay Das for the period of seven years. Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Dr B. Ahmed, learned Standing counsel, AFDC. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, lea rned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. D. Choudhury, learned coun sel for the respondent No.6. The facts, briefly stated herein, are that the tender of the wr it petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the signatures of the bidder namely, Sri Sukumar Das given in the affidavit and those given in the ten der form do not tally with each other. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no clear finding that the signatures given in the affidavit materi ally differ from the signatures given in the tender form, nor is there any fin ding that some other person had executed the affidavit in the name of Sukumar Da s. Learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the identit y of the tenderer and petitioner is also not disowning the affidavit that was an nexed with the tender. Learned counsel also submitted that without making a thor ough enquiry in the matter, the tender of the writ petitioner has been rejected merely on suspicion. During the course of hearing, Dr. Ahmed also produced the tender documents of the writ petitioner. I have also verified the signatures of the wr it petitioner given in the tender papers and the affidavit. After examining thes e two documents it is difficult to give a positive opinion either in the negativ e or in the affirmative. In other words, it is not possible on my part to specif ically declare that the signatures put in the affidavit are that of the same pe rson given in the tender documents. Be that as it may, from the affidavit of the AFDC it appears tha t a superficial enquiry was made by obtaining few more signatures of the writ pe titioner in the office. In other words, neither the writ petitioner was given an y opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the fact that the signatures given in the affidavit were genuine nor the concerned notary and the lawyer who had ident ified the deponent before the notary were summoned to ascertain this aspect. At the same time, the AFDC could have also forwarded the documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory to obtain their opinion. Having regard to all these aspects, I am of the view that at this stage the AFDC may be directed to make further enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the signatures given in the affidavit. For this purpose, the writ petitioner may be given another opportunity to adduce evidence, in whatever form he desires. At th e same time, the AFDC may also summon the concerned notary and the lawyer. Dr Ahmed submitted that the AFDC has no authority to summon any person. To over come this hurdle only a request letter may be issued to the notary and the lawye r. If they do not turn up to give their opinion it would be the duty of the peti tioner to produce those persons before the AFDC or produce their affidavit evide nce. This is in addition to obtaining opinion from the Forensic Science Laborato ry. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands dispose d of.