WA 44/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A C UPADHYAY This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2011 passed b y a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.4915 of 2010, whereby the set tlement order dated 11.08.2010 of Sunduba-Pabakati fishery passed by the Managin g Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation (AFDC), respondent No.4 was set aside and the respondent-Corporation was directed to issue fresh Notice Invi ting Tender (for short hereinafter as NIT) for settlement of the fishery in ques tion and to settle the same in accordance with law on or before 31.03.2011. 2. We have heard Mr. GN Sahewala, learned Senior counsel assisted b y Mr. S Banik, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. PS Deka, learned Governmen t Advocate, representing the State respondents, Dr. B Ahmed, learned Standing Co unsel, AFDC and Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel, with Mr. MK Hussain, learned cou nsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No.5. 3. Few basic facts leading to the presentation of the writ petition as well as filing of this writ appeal may be noted as follows: In response to the NIT dated 18.02.2008, issued by the responden t No.4 i.e. the Managing Director, AFDC, for settlement of 43/44 No. Shunduba-Pa bakati Fishery (for short the ’fishery’) of Morigaon District, the husband of th e appellant participated in the said tender process. Having emerged as the highe st bidder, eventually, at the intervention of the High Court, the fishery, in qu estion, was settled with the husband of the appellant for the period of 2008-09 to 31.03.2015, fixing yearly revenue at Rs.1,63,000/-(rupees one lakh and sixty three thousand). During the subsistence of the lease the husband of the appellant had represented before the authorities for remission of revenue. On 13.04.2010 respondent No.4, the Corporation issued a letter addressed to the husband of the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,54,961/-(rupees two lakhs fifty four thousand an d nine hundred sixty one), being the requisite revenue for the financial year 20 09-10, failing which it was indicated that steps for cancellation of the settlem ent, would be initiated. The husband of the appellant moved this Court by filing a writ p etition being WP(C) No.2734 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.0 5.2010, directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of t he husband of the appellant. In response to the above direction the respondent-C orporation issued a letter dated 20.05.2010 to the husband of the appellant to r enew the agreement for the financial year 2010-11, proposing to take appropriate steps on his failure to comply. However, shortly thereafter i.e. on 04.06.2010 the husband of the appellant expired. On the death of her husband, the appellant was left to maintain her family comprising of two daughters on her own. The appellant being a member of the Scheduled Caste community and widow of the settlement holder, represented before the authority concerned to allow her to run the fishery, which was settl ed with her late husband. In the meantime, on the death of the settlement holder , the respondent No.5 and another society had also prayed for settlement of the aforesaid fishery with them. The respondent authority allowed the prayer of the appellant vide order dated 11.08.2010 and settled the said fishery in favour of the appellant, on condition that the appellant would have to pay an amount of Rs .2,54,961/-(rupees two lakhs fifty four thousand and nine hundred and sixty one) to the respondent-Corporation within 30(thirty) days from the date of execution of the agreement. The writ petitioner, respondent No.5 herein, by filing writ peti tion being WP(C) No.4915 of 2010 challenged the aforesaid order of settlement of the fishery made by the respondent-Corporation with the appellant, wherein and whereunder the impugned order came to be passed by the learned single Judge, giv ing rise to this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the husband of the appellant as a settlement holder of the fishery in question was not a defaul ter in making payment of government revenue, but he died suddenly on 04.06.2010, during the subsistence of the settlement of the fishery. In the circumstance, t he respondent-Corporation, considering the predicament of the appellant with two minor children to raise and her commitment to pay the balance amount within 30( thirty) days from the execution of the agreement, coupled with the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent No.5 had no locus to pray for settlement on being th e 2nd highest bidder of a tender process, concluded in the year 2008 and on huma nitarian considerations, allowed the appellant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, to run the fishery. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.5, however , submitted that after the death of the settlement holder, the settlement came t o an end, therefore, the impugned order of settlement without issuance of NIT in favour of the appellant is illegal in the eye of law. 6. Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel, representing respondent No.4-AFDC, submitted that since the settlement holder expired during the subsisting of the lease, the respondent Corporation, considering the readiness and willingness of the widow of the settlement holder to manage the fishery and to pay the revenue , had allowed her to manage the fishery for the remaining period granted to the husband of the appellant. However, on a pointed query made by us, Dr. Ahmed, lea rned counsel for the respondent No.5 could not substantiate and authenticate the procedure, rule or guidelines of allotment followed by the respondent-Corporati on in giving settlement of the fishery in question to the appellant, who was a w idow of the settlement holder of the fishery. 7. The question, which arose for consideration before the learned s ingle Judge, was as to whether the decision of the respondent-Corporation to set tle the fishery in favour of the wife of the deceased settlement holder either o n humanitarian consideration or on compassionate ground, is vitiated? 8. Learned single Judge having discussed the circumstances leading to the settlement of the fishery to the appellant, held that on the death of the settlement holder, the order of settlement stood cancelled and consequently the agreement entered between the parties i.e. the husband of the respondent No.5 a nd the Corporation ceased to exist. Learned single Judge also observed that the respondent-Corporation was required to issue fresh NIT for settlement of the sai d fishery, which had not been done and instead, the appellant was allowed to man age the fishery, which was not legally permissible in the facts and circumstance s of the case. The operative portions of the direction issued by the learned sin gle Judge read as follows: Since on the death of the settlement holder i.e. the husband of respondent No.5 the order or settlement ceased to exist so also the agreement between the parti es, the respondent Corporation was required to issue fresh NIT for settlement of the said fishery which has not been done and instead allowed to manage the said fishery by the widow, which cannot be done in law. That being the position the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 is set aside. The respondent corporation is directed to issue the NIT for settlement of the f ishery in question and settle the same in accordance with law. The said exercise is directed to be completed by 31.3.2011. The respondent Corporation is at libe rty to make interim arrangement till the fishery is settled as directed and with the time allowed. The respondent Corporation may also consider the refund of the amount de posited by the respondent No.5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No cost. 9. Mr. Sahewala, learned senior counsel for the appellant drawing t he attention of this Court to the agreement signed between the husband of the ap pellant and the respondent corporation submitted that in terms of clause 41 of t he agreement, the first party and second party referred to in the agreement, wou ld also include any authorized person. Therefore, the wife of the appellant bein g the legal representative of the deceased settlement holder, can be treated as the authorized person of the settlement holder in terms of clause 41 of the agre ement. 10. In our opinion, even if we liberally interpret clause 41 of the Agreement, it would not be possible to extend the status of authorized person to the wife of the deceased settlement holder, since clause 41 can include only th ose authorized persons, who must have been authorized by the settlement holder d uring his life time. There is no reference of legal representative to be among t he authorized person of the settlement holder in terms of the agreement. Therefo re, we are of the view that the proposition sought to be projected to interpret the status of the appellant wife, as the authorized person of the deceased settl ement holder, in terms of clause 41 of the agreement, is not acceptable. 11. On careful evaluation of the rival contentions advanced by the l earned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents, we are of the consi dered view that the settlement of the fishery in question ought to have been mad e by issuing the NIT in terms of the prescribed procedure. The respondents autho rity could not have made a departure from the existing system of settlement of f ishery on compassionate ground in the absence of rules or guidelines prescribed in that regard. It cannot be forgotten by the respondent-department that Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the Government from choosing a contra ctor/supplier at its will and pleasure. The respondent-Corporation will have to be fair, reasonable and transparent in all its dealings and activities. As a mat ter of fact, fairness, reasonableness and transparency in State’s action are the foundations of the democratic procedure, which is also the backbone of fundamen tal rights. The respondent-Corporation cannot act like a private individual. It should act according to certain established healthy norms and standards. Therefo re, the action of the respondent-Corporation, in offering the settlement of fish ery to the appellant, is apparently arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory, wh ich cannot be allowed to continue. 12. The action of the respondent-Corporation, in offering the settle ment of fishery to the appellant, for being the wife of the deceased settlement holder, in the absence of rules, guidelines or law permitting it, is violative o f Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any ground to a ssail the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the wr it appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. 14. However, there shall be no order as to costs.