WP(C) 202/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr AM Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms S Sarma, the learned GA, appearing for the State respondents and Mr RP Sarmah, t he learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the validity of the orde rs dated 07.08.2010 and 12.09.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, gr anting temporary settlement of No. 1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fisher to the respondent N o. 6 @ Rs. 418/- per day pending regular settlement of the fishery. The contenti on of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 6 had given their tenders in response to NIT dated 16.12.200 9 and when they are on the same footings, a temporary arrangement was made @ of Rs. 418/- per day in favour of the respondent No. 6 by overlooking his offer to pay Rs. 1500/- per day to operate the fishery, which is irrational and is contra ry to public interest. 3. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a regist ered Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. registered under the Assam Co-operative S ocieties Act, 1949 bearing Registration No. D-107/58-59 dated 23.02.1959 and hav ing its head office at village Fakiranirjhar in the Dhubri District, whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the petitioners society, who is duly autho rized to represent the society. The petitioners society claims to be comprisin g of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the fishermen community in the neighbour hood of the No. 1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery of Dhubri District. The State respon dents had issued the NIT dated 19.01.2006 inviting tenders for settlement of th e fishery in question for a period of seven years with effect from 11.03.2006 to 10.03.2013. In response to the said NIT, the fishery was settled with one M/s Manash Padmabari Jinjiram Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. by the order dated 2 4.02.2006. The settlement was challenged by M/s Kachudola Society in WP(C) No. 1507/2006. This Court, by the order dated 22.03.2006, remanded the matter to th e State respondents for a fresh consideration and thereafter by an order dated 1 5.05.2006, the fishery was settled with the said society. This settlement was a gain challenged by the said M/s Manash Padmabari Jinjiram Fishery Co-operative S ociety Ltd. in WP(C) No. 2501/2006 and by the judgment and order dated 14.02.20 08, this Court remanded the case to the settling authority for the second time. Thereafter, by the order dated 5.4.2008, the fishery was again settled with M/s Kachudola Society which was again challenged by the said M/s manash Padmabari J injiram Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. in WP(C) No. 1566/2008, which was agai n disposed of by this Court on 31.07.2009 directing the authorities to issue a f resh tender. In the meantime, M/s Gauripur Co-operative Society Ltd. had all al ong been operating the fishery in question on a temporary basis @ of Rs. 360/- p er day. On the direction of this Court, a fresh NIT dated 16.12.2009 was issued , in which the petitioners society along with six others tenderers had submitted their respective bids, on the submission whereof, a report was required to be called for from the Deputy Commissioner to ascertain which of the tenderers is i n the neighbourhood of the Society. The fishery in question, according to the p etitioner, is spread over three districts, namely, Dhubri, Goalpara and Bongaiga on and as such the reports are required to be called from the Deputy Commissione rs of the three districts. It is the case of the petitioners that no report was called for from the Deputy Commissioners in respect of their bids and on being enquired, the petitioner society was informed that the reason for not calling fo r the report was that the list of members had not been provided along with the t ender documents. In the meantime, M/s Kachudola Society preferred another round of litigation before this Court in WP(C) No. 2028/2010 praying for interference of this Court in the tender process. This Court, by an interim order dated 09. 04.2010 directed the respondent authorities not to proceed further with the tend er. According to the petitioners, the tender process remained at a stage where the reports had not submitted by the respective Deputy Commissioners and as such the stage for considering the list of members of the petitioners society is not yet over. In the meantime, the petitioners society had submitted an applicatio n dated 19.05.2010 before the Fishery Minister, Assam which was referred to the Commissioner and Secretary by the letter dated 24.06.2010. In that application, the petitioners made an offer to operate the fishery on a temporary basis again st the payment of Rs. 1500/- per day till final settlement is made pursuant to t he tender process. The representation of the petitioners was forwarded to the D eputy Commissioner seeking his views and comments on the same. Instead of sett ling the fishery with the petitioner, who had offered three time more than the o ffer of the respondent No. 6, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri District by the le tter dated 7.8.2010 recommended the letter to operate the fishery on a temporary basis @ of Rs. 418/- per day instead of Rs. 360/- per day as originally paid by him. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. The writ petition is contested by the State respondents as well as the r espondent No. 6. No separate affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the priv ate respondent but he is allowed to rely on contentions made by him in Misc. App lication in Misc. Case No. 467/2011 for vacating the interim order. The main co ntention of the respondent No. 6 is that the tender submitted by the petitioners society was found to be invalid and that the respondent authorities took the vi ew that to allow the petitioners society to operate the fishery in question even on a temporary basis could create a legal complication and accordingly rejected his application. This is how the fishery has been settled with the respondent No. 6. In this writ petition, I do not propose to examine the validity of the r ejection of the tender of the petitioners. There is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioners society has offered a sum of Rs. 1500/- per day for operating th e fishery whereas the respondent No. 6 was settled with the fishery @ of Rs. 418 /- per day. After the settlement with the respondent No. 6, this society also o ffered to operate the fishery in question at an enhanced revenue/rent. In my op inion, there is a case where offer and the counter offer have been made by the p etitioners society and the respondent No. 6. Normally, other things being equal , a higher rate offered by a party is usually accepted for settlement of the fis hery. It appears that the respondent authorities did not consider the offer made by the petitioners society with the seriousness it deserves when the settlement was being made with the respondent No. 6. This may be a case of non applicatio n of mind on the part of the respondent authorities. Prima facie, the decision of the respondent authorities to settle the fishery in question in favour of the respondent No. 6 @ of Rs. 418/- per day in the face of offer/counter offer made by the petitioners society @ of Rs. 1500/- per day, appears to be irrational. Of course, no conclusive determination can be made by this Court sitting in a wr it court. Theefore, reconsideration of the matter by the respondent authorities is called for in the light of my above prima facie finding. As the impugned de cision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri District, it will be just an d fair if the matter is decided at the level of the Commissioner and Secretary t o the Fishery Department, Govt. of Assam. The exercise of taking a fresh decisi on shall be completed by the concerned Commissioner and Secretary within a perio d of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall be construed as an observation on the merit of the case, which shall be considered by the Commissioner/Secretary, Fishery Department, Govt. of Assam, independently. No costs.