WA 217/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB H. SAIKIA THE HON’BLE SMTI JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGEMENT & ORDER(oral) Heard Mr.S.S.Dey, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Also heard Mr. P.S.Deka, the learne d State counsel representing the State of Assam/ the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This writ appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Writ Court in W.P(C) No.2903 of 2008 whereby the writ pe tition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant was closed holding that the Co urt did find no reason to proceed further with the writ petition. 3. The basic facts in short agitated before this Court are that pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ’the NIT’) dated 11.06.2008, the appellan t along with the respondent No.3 and a third Bidder Sri Binod Biswas submitted their respective tender papers for settlement of 07/93 Raidak Fishery of Dhubri for a period of seven years i.e. from 04.07.2008 -09 to 2014-15 wherein the ap pellant quoted his bid value at Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety thousand ) only and respondent No.3 quoted his bid value at Rs.2,59,000/- (Rupees two lak hs fifty nine thousand) only. The tender papers were submitted on 25.06.2008 a nd on the very day those were opened. Meanwhile immediately after opening of the tender paper the appellant by way of correction made an application before the concerned authority for fixing his bid value at Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousand) only since by mistake he earlier quoted his bid value at Rs.4,9 0,000/- in the original tender paper. All the papers including that application seeking for correction of the bid value of the appellant at Rs.2,90,000/- instea d of Rs.4,90,000/- were sent to the Government/respondent No.1 for scrutiny and consideration. 4. From the minute perusal of the entire records, it is seen that when the Government was in seisin of the matter the appellant as writ petitioner moved th e writ Court through W.P(C)No.2903/08 and this Court by the impugned order dated 23.7.2008 refrained from entertaining the writ petition on two counts namely:- (a) The petitioner-appellant could not be permitted to make any request for changing the condition of the earlier offer i.e. the bid value of Rs.4,90,000/- to Rs.2,90,000/- as the sanctity of the tender process did not permit a bid valu e already offered to be changed except when the authority issuing the tender ent ers into such negotiation and more particularly, when the appellant, in terms of the NIT, had given declaration, while submitting his tender papers, that he wou ld not make any request for changing the conditions of his offer. (b) The instant writ petition suffered from suppression of material facts du e to the reason that the appellant as petitioner did not give any faintest indic ation that he submitted a representation dated 25.6.2008 to the Deputy Commissio ner or inform the Court as regards making such change in the bid being offered b y him at Rs.2,90,000/- instead of Rs.4,90,000/-. 5. We have carefully gone through the materials available on record includi ng the pleadings so exchanged by and between the parties including the affidavit so filed on behalf of the State Government /official respondents No.1 and 2. 6. Having gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the r espondent No.1, the Commissioner and Secretary, Fishery Department on 14.8.2008 we do find in paragraphs 4 and 6, as stated thereof, that after opening the tend er papers the authority made out the comparative statements of the parties as pe r recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner wherein the appellant herein had quo ted the bid value at Rs.4,90,000/- and the respondent No.3 quoted the bid value at Rs.2,61,501/- and one third bidder namely Sri Binod Biswas offered his bid value at Rs.2,48,301/-. Significantly in the said paragraph i.e. paragraph 4, i t has been emphatically contended that all tender papers were still under exam ination and accordingly no decision was taken as yet. At the same time, in parag raph-6 it has been averred by the Government as under: 6 & & & & & &.It is further submitted that the State Government has not received subsequent petition from the appellant to withdraw the petition by which they w anted to change the bid value. However, in the instant writ appeal they have aga in prayed before the Hon’ble High Court to issue direction to consider their te nder at Rs.4,90,000/- as submitted initially. 7. It is also noticed in paragraph-7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of th e Respondent No.1 that the deponent prayed before this Court to allow the Stat e Government to go ahead with the examination and evaluation of the tender pape rs for making the settlement to the eligible party, as per Rules. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the relevant contentions and averments made in the affidavit filed by the resp ondents particularly the respondent No.1 as noticed above, we are of the conside red view that the ends of justice will be satisfied if the entire matter is sen t back to the Government for its examination and evaluation of all the eligible tender papers, as it is apparent from the averments made by the Government t hat all the tender papers are still under their consideration and no decision has been taken as yet, with utmost expedition. 9. Accordingly the respondents particularly the respondent No.1 is directed to undertake the examination of the tender papers of the parties and complete the tender process as early as possible preferably within a period of two month s from today . 10. This disposes of the writ appeal modifying the impugned judgment and ord er dated 23.7.2008 passed by the writ Court in W.P(C)No.2903 of 2008. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.