WP(C) 6065/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (briefly th e Corporation hereafter) issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 26-8-2010 inviting tenders for settlement of 4(four) fisheries including the Kapla Fishery situated in the Barpeta district. Pursuant to the said NIT, three tenderers had submitted their tenders including the petitioner in respect of the said fishery . The tenders were opened on 15-9-2010 and a comparative statement was prepared. As per the comparative statement, the bids of the three tenderers were as foll ows : (1) Sri Sanjeet Das - Rs. 4,20,000/- (2) Sri Haridas Das - Rs. 3,25,705/- (3) M/s. Barkana Beel Fishery Samabai Samity - Rs. 3,15,000/- The tender committee scrutinized the tender papers and found the tender of the highest bidder Sri Sanjeet Das complete in all respects. The tend er committee found that the second highest bidder had submitted fixed deposit in place of call deposit for the purpose of security deposit. The third highest bi dder i.e. the petitioner did not submit the Bakijai clearance certificate and it was also found that the registration certificate was not very clear. For the af oresaid reasons, the tender of the second and the third bidder were found to be not acceptable. The Managing Director of the Corporation put up a note dated 20- 9-2010 to the Chairman of the Corporation proposing settlement of the fishery wi th the said Sri Sanjeet Das, respondent No. 4 at his annual bid value of Rs. 4,2 0, 000/-. The said proposal was accepted by the Chairman following which the ord er dated 30-10-2010 was issued by the Corporation settling the said fishery with the respondent No. 4 for the period from 2010-11 to 2016-17 at the annual reven ue of Rs. 4,20,000/-, totalling Rs. 29,40,000/-. It is this order which is chall enged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation. The respondent No. 4 though served, chose not to contest the matter. 3. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that th e settlement holder i.e. the respondent No. 4 is the brother-in-law of the previ ous lessee of the fishery and that he had submitted the tender collusively with the previous lessee to oust the petitioner. The basic ground on which the settle ment order is challenged by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel is that though the res pondent No. 4 belongs to the Schedule Caste community, he is not an actual fishe rman and that he has no previous fishing experience. Though the settlement is ch allenged on the aforesaid two grounds, the petitioner has not annexed the terms and conditions of the tender with the writ petition. 4. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corpora tion submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. On scr utiny of the tender papers submitted by the highest bidder, those were found to be in order. Therefore, the authority settled the fishery with the highest bidde r. Dr. Ahmed submits that there is no infirmity in the decision making process a nd, therefore, the challenge made to the impugned settlement should be rejected by this Court. Though the Corporation has not filed any affidavit, Dr. Ahmed has produced the relevant record at the time of hearing. 4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2001 (1) GLT 454 had directed that the Corporation should fr ame definite guidelines for settlement of the fisheries vested with it. This Cou rt held that while laying down such guidelines or resolutions, the spirit of the fishery rules may be given due consideration. This court noted that in the cour se of hearing, copies of the resolution adopted by the Corporation on 3-1-1994 w ere produced and the said resolutions provided that the settlements should be m ade for a period ranging from 5 to 10 years, which should be by way of tender on ly and that too to the highest bidder. In terms of the aforesaid Full bench deci sion, the Corporation framed the terms and conditions for leasing out the fisher ies which are vested in it, which terms and conditions were revised with effect from 2007-08. As per Clause 2 of the revised terms and conditions, the following individuals or organizations of the concerned district where the fishery is loc ated are eligible to submit tender- (1) Registered Fishery Cooperative Society, comprised of 100% actual fisherman belonging to the Schedule Caste, (2) Actual/ professional fisherman belonging to the Schedule Caste community, (3) Fishery Co -operative Societies constituted of 100% actual fisherman belonging to the Maima l Community of undivided Cachar district and, (4) Actual/professional fisherman belonging to the Maimal community of undivided Cachar district. As per Clause 4. 1.4 of the revised terms and conditions, amongst other requirements, a tenderer has to submit along with the tender a fishing experience certificate issued by t he concerned District Fishery Development Officer or by the Sub-divisional Fishe ry Development Officer or the Officer-in-charge or Manager of a fishery of the C orporation. As per Clause 4.1.5, a tenderer has to submit a certificate, which s hould show that he belongs to the Schedule Caste or Maimal community. As per Cla use 8.3, the tenderer with the highest bid will be selected. 5. I have perused the record produced by the learned standing couns el of the Corporation. From the tender papers submitted by the respondent No. 4, I find that as per the printed tender format he was required to submit amongst other documents, a caste certificate and a fishing experience certificate. I fin d from the record that the respondent No. 4 had submitted his caste certificate which shows that he belongs to the Hira Caste which is recognized as a Schedule Caste in the State of Assam. I further find that the respondent No. 4 had submit ted a fishing experience certificate dated 13-9-2010 issued by the Officer-in-ch arge, Kapla Fishery of the Corporation stating that he had fishing experience of about 10 years in the Kapla Fishery. The petitioner has himself stated in the w rit petition that the previous lessee of the fishery is the brother-in-law of th e respondent No. 4. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid fi shing experience certificate issued by an Officer of the Corporation certifying that the respondent No. 4 had fishing experience of about 10 years in that fishe ry. 6. As the tender of the respondent No. 4 was found valid and his bi d value being the highest, the Corporation rightly decided to settle the fishery with the respondent No. 4 in terms of Clause 8.3 of the revised terms and condi tions. From the discussions made above, I find that there is no substance in the challenge made by the petitioner to the order of settlement dated 30-10-2010. T here is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.