WP(C) 839/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA 1. All the writ petitions being in respect of the settlement of Gov t. registered fishery River group No. 2/88 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part II and III a nd the issue raised being one and the same have been heard together and are bein g disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri by his notice dated 25.11.2010 invited t enders for settlement of the said fishery for the period from 22.11.2010 to 21.1 1.2017. Such a course of action was adopted on expiry of the earlier settlement for the period from 22.11.2004 to 21.11.2010. Be it stated here that the petitio ner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011, i.e. M/s. Chandakhola Beel Fishery Co-operative So cieties Ltd., was the settlement holder for the said period. One of the conditio ns stipulated in the said settlement was that the settlement holder must be in t he neighbourhood of the fishery. 3. In response to the aforesaid NIT, tenders were submitted by as many as nine tenderers including these three writ petitioners. It is an admitted positio n that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 is the highest bidder while the p etitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 who was originally third highest bidder is th e 2nd highest bidder, when the said 2nd bid was found defective. On the other hand, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 is the 8th highest bidder. There r espective bids are Rs. 56,00,707/-; Rs. 56,00,007/- and Rs. 22,40,000/-. 4. All the writ petitions have been filed claiming settlement of the fisher y in favour of the respective petitioners. While it is the plea of the petitione r in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 that it being the highest bidder and having fulfilled all the requisite criteria as would be evident from the records including the c omparative statement, it should be settled with the fishery, the stand of the ot her two writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 is th at the highest bidder, i.e. the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 having not ment ioned its distance from the fishery as per the requirement of the NIT clause, it s tender ought to have rejected and resultantly, the fishery ought to have settl ed with them. It is the stand of the two writ petitioners that their neighbourho od certificates are only acceptable and that the neighbourhood certificate submi tted by the highest bidder is not acceptable. 5. From the above, what is seen is that the whole controversy is in respect of the neighbourhood of the petitioners from the fishery. 6. I have heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah alongwith Mr. N. Pathak, learned counsel fo r the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 as well as Mr. Z. Hussain, learned cou nsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 and Mr. A. Sarma, le arned counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P.(C) No. 839/2011. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate who has also produce the relevant records and I have gone through the same. 7. Both Mr. A. Sarma and Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for 2nd and 8th highest bidders, i.e. in W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 , submit that their certificates of neighbourhood being specific of the distance as per the requirement of the NIT, their bids are required to be accepted and t he bids offered by the highest bidder, i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2 011 is liable to be rejected as the neighbourhood certificate submitted by the s aid bidder did not indicate the distance of the fishery from the co-operative so ciety. Be it stated here that all the petitioners are co-operative societies cla iming to be in the neighbourhood of the fishery. As noted above, the better clai m for settlement of the fishery by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 and W .P.(C) No. 1937/2011 is on the basis of the distance mentioned in their respecti ve certificates. 8. The neighbourhood certificate in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No . 1314/2011, i.e. the highest bidder, has been issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Dhubri and the same is dated 24.12.2010. On the other hand, the neighbourhood certificate issued in favour of the 2nd highest bi dder which is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 has been issued by the Cir cle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle and the same is dated 09.12.2010. It has also been placed reliance on another certificate issued by the District Deputy Regis trar of Co-operative Societies, Dhubri and the same is dated 07.12.2010. 9. The two neighbourhood certificates on which the 8th bidder, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 has placed reliance both dated 10.12.2010 which have been issued b y the Circle Officer, South Salmara Revenue Circle and the District Fishery Deve lopment Officer, Dhubri. 10. In the certificate of neighbourhood submitted by the highest bidder ther e is no mention of the distance of the Co-operative Societies from the fishery. On the other hand, in the neighbourhood certificates, submitted by the 2nd and t he 8th highest bidders who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 and W.P. (C) NO. 839/2011, the distance of the villages has been indicated. 11. It is on the basis of the above, i.e. indication of the distance, the 2n d and 8th highest bidders claim that their bids should be accepted and the bid o ffered by the highest bidder should be rejected it having not mentioned the actu al distance of the villages from the fishery. 12. Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 reads as follow: 12. Except those referred to in sub-rule No. 8(b) above, all registered Fisheri es shall be settled under tender system of sale in place of sale auction. Provided that the Government shall settle a 60% category fishery with special ca tegory of co-operative Societies, Non-Government Organization and Self Help Grou ps consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery conce rned by the Tender System. 13. Rule 12 quoted above was amended in 2005 vide notification 31.03.2005. I t is submitted by the learned counsel for the parities that by the aforesaid ame ndment of 2005, the tender system was effected and prior to that settlement was to be made by way of direct settlement. Whether it was by way of direct settlem ent or by tender system, one of the requirements is that the Co-operative Societ ies in question must be in the neighbourhood of the fishery. While the learned c ounsel for the petitioners appearing for the 2nd and 8th highest bidders submit that the expression neighbourhood should be measured in terms of the actual d istance, the learned counsel for the highest bidder submits that the expression neighbourhood cannot be qualified with that of the distance of the village fro m the fishery. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2003 (1) GLT 155 ( Brahmaputra Part-II Mach M ahal Samabai Samity Ltd. vs. State of Assam and ors.) in which this Court dealin g with the expression neighbourhood held that the distance in regard to neighb ourhood is not required to be measured with mathematical precision and that the said expression needs interpretation so as to advance the object and purpose of the rules. In this connection, it has been observed thus: 13. Turning to the aspect of neighbourhood, we feel that the expression needs interpretation so as to advance the object and purpose of the rules and not to f rustrate it. As observed earlier, in a given fact situation, thee may be more th an one society in the neighbourhood of the fishery. It may so happen that a soci ety fulfilling the order conditions of the proviso and which is more deserving f or such settlement is, distance wise, slightly further away from the fishery, th an the other eligible societies. Will the object and purpose of the proviso be s erved if the former society is discarded only on the ground that though it is mo re deserving, the other societies are nearer to the fishery ? In the other words , is the word ’neighbourhood’ to be interpreted in terms of inches, feet and yar ds or a more pragmatic and purposive, interpretation has to be provided thereto. The Black Law’s Dictionary defines the word ’neighbourhood’ as place near ; an adjoining or surrounding district; a mere minimum vicinity; vicinage & In ordina ry and common usage ’locality’ is synonymous in meaning with ’neighbourhood’. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, the word ’neighbourhood’ has been define d to signify nearness as opposed to remoteness. Whether a place is in the neigh bourhood of another place depends upon no arbitrary rule of distance or topograp hy. One house may be said to be in the neighbourhood of another house and not st ructurally adjoin it &. 14. The term ’neighbourhood’ does not express any definite idea of distance. A f ew feet or several 100 years or even a greater distance from an object would be in its neighbourhood. 14. In the NIT, one of the requirements was the certificate of distance/neig hbourhood. It is in this context, it is the stand of the 2nd and 8th highest bid ders that the certificate must mention the actual distance irrespective of wheth er the bidder is in the neighbourhood of the fishery. I am afraid, such an inter pretation cannot be accepted. In the rules referred to above, there is no mentio n of any distance relatable to neighbourhood. What is mentioned is the neighbour hood and not the actual distance. If the narrow interpretation as has been sough t to be given by the petitioners involved in W.P.(C) No. 830/2001 and W.P.(C) No . 1937/2011 is accepted, same will lead to chaos and confusion and there will be litigation on the point of actual distance of the villages from the fisheries. Once it is established that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 is in the ne ighbourhood of the fishery, there is no question of measuring the distance by ma thematical precision so as to find out what is the distance of the villages from the fishery. It will also be pertinent to mention here that the highest bidder was the earlier settlement holder of the fishery for the period from 2004 - 2010 in consideration of its neighbourhood. 15. In addition to the above, I have verified the records produced by the le arned State counsel. On perusal of the records, it appears that in the comparati ve statement it was recorded that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 is the highest bidder and it has fulfilled all the requirements. After the tender comm ittee approved the said highest bidder, the matter went to the Govt. and the dep artmental Commissioner and Secretary approved the said petitioner for settlement of the fishery. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the concerned Minister who opined that neighbourhood certificate submitted by the highest bidder was n ot as per the NIT as the distance of the society from the fishery was not mentio ned. On the other hand, it was opined that since the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011, i.e. the 2nd highest bidder, in its certificate mentioned the distanc e of the society from the fishery, it should be considered for settlement. 16. The aforesaid view of the Minister is not tenable. The documents annexed alongwith the tender were accepted by all the authorities upto the stage of Com missioner and Secretary in the jurisdictional department. Nowhere it was mention ed that the neighbourhood certificate submitted by the highest bidder was not as per the NIT. In NIT clause as has been noted above, there is no requirement of submission of certificate indicating the distance of Co-operative Society from the fishery. 17. Above being the position, there is no escape from the conclusion that on the basis of the tender documents and the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1 314/2011 is the highest bidder in respect of the fishery in question, it is enti tled to get the settlement of the same for which there was recommendation all th rough out till the file came to the Minister. The Minister by his note dated 1 7.02.2011 directed for settlement of the fishery in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 on the aforementioned ground of non-mentioning of the dist ance by the highest bidder. The view taken by the Minister being not in conform ity with the Rules mentioned above as well as the tender clause, I am of the con sidered opinion that the said view is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1314/2011 is allowed directing the authority to settle the fishery in favour of the petitioner. The other two writ petition bein g W.P.(C) No. 839/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1937/2011 are dismissed. There shall be n o order as to costs.