WP(C) 2903/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. HN Pho okan, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Heard also Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Pursuant to a notice, dated 11-06-2008, inviting tenders for settlement of 07/93 Raidak Fishery of Dhubri for a period from 04-07-2008-09 to 2014-15, the petiti oner and some others, including the respondent No. 3 herein, submitted their ten ders, the bid value of the petitioner being of an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/-; wher eas the bid value offered by the respondent No. 3 was Rs. 2,59,000/-. Comparativ e statement made, on the basis of the tender papers, so received, reflected the present petitioner as the highest bidder, his bid being, as already indicated he reinbefore, a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- and the respondent No. 3 being the second hi ghest bidder, his bid value being, as already indicated hereinbefore, 2,59,000/- . By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the p etitioner has sought issuance of appropriate writ(s), commanding the respondents /authorities concerned not to give effect to the recommendations made by the Dep uty Commissioner, Dhubri, for settlement of fishery in favour of the respondent No. 3, the case, which the petitioner has set up, in the writ petition, being, i n brief, thus: The petitioner was the highest bidder, but for reasons best known to the respondents/authorities concerned, settlement had not been granted in hi s favour, though he had been eagerly waiting to receive the order of settlement; rather, what the petitioner has learnt from reliable source is that the settlem ent will be made in favour of the respondent No. 3, but making of such settlemen t, according to the writ petitioner, would be ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unfai r, mala fide and capricious. While considering the writ petition, what is of paramount importance to note is that in his entire writ petition, the writ petitioner never gave even faintest i ndication that he had submitted a representation, dated 25-06-2008, to the Deput y Commissioner, Dhubri, informing him to the effect, inter alia, that it was by mistake that he had quoted the bid value of Rs. 4,90,000/- in place of Rs. 2,90, 000/- How the petitioner had come to calculate Rs. 2,90,000/- as his bid value w as also elaborately pointed out in his said representation. The petitioner got h is representation forwarded by authorities, such as, President, Zilla Parishad, Dhubri, Member of Legislative Assembly and the Chairman, Scheduled Caste Develop ment Board, Dhubri. Having completely suppressed the facts, the petitioner has f iled this writ petition and obtained, in the process, from this Court, on 02-07- 2008, an interim order to the effect that no final order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 3 shall be made. However, on appearance of the respondents concerned, it has, now, come to light that after the tender papers had been opened and the comparative statements were prepared, the petitioner, indicated above, clearly informed the respondent/auth orities concerned that the bid value of Rs. 4,90,000/-, as offered by him, was i ncorrect and that it ought to have been Rs. 2,90,000/- and he also clarified as to how he intends making payment of Rs. 2,90,000/-. The sanctity of the tender p rocess does not permit a bid value, offered, to be changed except when the autho rity issuing the tender enters into such negotiation. No wonder, therefore, that as was required, in terms of the tender notice and the bidding documents, the petitioner had given declaration, while submitting his tender papers, that he wo uld not make any request for changing the conditions of his offer. Thus, apart from the fact that the present writ petition suffers from suppressio n of material facts, the petitioner has, by suppressing the material facts, obta ined the interim direction, on 02-07-2008, as indicated hereinabove. This apart, the terms and conditions of the tender process did not permit the petitioner to make any change in the conditions subject to which he had made his offer. In th e face of the fact that the petitioner did not adhere to the bid value offered b y him, the respondents/authorities concerned had no option, but to consider the petitioner as ineligible for settlement. In such circumstances, the respondents/ authorities concerned remained free to settlement of the said fishery in favour of any of the eligible tenderers including the respondent No. 3. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason to proc eed further with this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, closed an d the interim directions passed, in this writ petition, on 02-07-2008, shall acc ordingly stand vacated.