WP(C) 4188/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, lear ned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 22 .07.2011 passed by the Executive Officer and Secretary, Golaghat Pachim Anchalik Panchayat settling Diffalo 5th Part Beel in favour of the respondent No.6 for t he Panchayat year commencing from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012 at his offered price of Rs.14,551/-. The contention of the petitioner in challenging the order is tha t earlier the Panchayat authority initiated the process for settlement of the sa id fishery by issuing the notice inviting tender dated 16.05.2011 fixing Rs.5,00 0/- as minimum bid value pursuant to which the petitioner and 3(three) others su bmitted their respective bids. It is further contended that though he offered Rs .5,100/- and was the lowest bidder, 3(three) other persons, namely, (i) Binud Ha zarika, S/O Lahkar Hazarika, (ii) Binud Hazarika, S/O Akoman Hazarika and (iii) Ratul Hazarika offered Rs.61,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the 1st, 2nd and 3rd highest bidd ers refused to accept the settlement, the Panchayat authority ought to have sett led the fishery in favour of the writ petitioner, he being the only bidder left out in the tender process offering Rs.5,100/-. The further contention of the pet itioner is that though he filed several representations before the Panchayat aut hority, the authority issued another NIT dated 11.07.2011 pursuant to which only one bidder, namely, the respondent No.6 had submitted his bid offering Rs.14,55 1/- and accordingly the authority has settled the fishery in his favour. It appears that the minimum bid value was fixed at Rs.5,000/- by the NIT dated 16.05.2011. The petitioner and 3(three) others though submitted their res pective bids, the other bidders as noticed above, have withdrawn their bids leav ing the petitioner alone in the fray who offered the bid value of Rs.5,100/-. Th e Panchayat authority keeping in view the amount offered by the petitioner, whic h was Rs.5,100/- against minimum bid value of Rs.5,000/- decided not to settle t he fishery in question in favour of the petitioner the offered amount being too low, for which the Panchayat authority issued another NIT dated 11.07.2011, purs uant to which the fishery has been settled in favour of the respondent No.6 at h is offered amount of Rs.14,551/-. No illegality can be found in the action of th e Panchayat authority in issuing the fresh NIT and in settling the fishery at va lue higher than what was offered by petitioner as the authority is to see that t hey derive maximum benefit out of the settlement. It appears that had the fisher y been settled in favour of the petitioner the Panchayat would have suffered los s as by issuing the 2nd NIT, the Panchayat authority could get Rs.14,551/- and h ence the reason for deciding not to settle the fishery in favour of the petition er pursuant to the earlier tender notice issued on 16.05.2011 and to initiate a fresh process by inviting tender and consequent settlement of the same in favour of the respondent No.6 cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary requiring inte rference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.