WP(C) 5545/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Ahmed, learne d standing counsel, AFDC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The responde nt No. 3 has not entered appearance despite service of notice. The petitioner, who was one of the tenderer seeking settlement of Along Dhupna F ishery of Cachar district, by the present petition, has challenged the order dat ed 17.8.2010 passed by the Managing Director of Assam Fisheries Development Corp oration (in short the ’Corporation’), settling the said fishery in favour of the respondent No. 3 by condoning non submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certifica te issued by the district authorities. The grounds on which the said order of settlement has been put to challenge is t hat though under Clause 4.1.7 of the detailed terms and conditions of the tender the submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued by the district auth orities is a must the respondent authority has accepted the bid of respondent No . 3 though he did not submit the Bakijai Clearance Certificate and as such his t ender papers were defective. Mr. Banik referring to the impugned order dated 17.8.2010 as well as the detaile d terms and conditions of the NIT more particularly clause 4.1.7 has submitted t hat since the tenderer is required to submit amongst others the latest Bakijai C learance Certificate issued by the district authorities and unless such requirem ent is fulfilled no settlement order can be issued in favour of the tenderer who has not complied with such requirement. Referring to the order dated 17.8.2010 the learned counsel submits that it is apparent from the order of settlement tha t the respondent No. 3’s tender papers were defective as he did not submit the B akijai Clearance Certificate issued by the district authorities as required by c lause 4.1.7 of the detailed terms and conditions. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order of settlement dated 17.8. 2010 needs to be set aside and the petitioner being the highest valid bidder dir ection may be issued to settle the fishery in question in his favour. Dr. Ahmed, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, p lacing reliance on the records of settlement produced before this Court, submits that though clause 4.1.7 of the detailed terms and conditions of the NIT requir es submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued by the district author ities the settlement was issued in favour of respondent No. 3, he being the high est bidder offering Rs. 1,00,300/- subject to the condition of submission of the latest Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued by the district authorities. It is submitted that the Corporation has taken such a decision as the offer of the oth er bidders were much less than the offer of the respondent No. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with three others including the r espondent No. 3 pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 18.6.2010 submitted their bids for settlement of the aforesaid fishery in question. While the petit ioner offered Rs. 59,200/- the respondent No. 3 offered Rs. 1,00,300/-. The two other bidders namely; East Katigorah Fishery and Tamzid Ali offered Rs. 52,000/- and 60,200/- respectively. The records produced by the learned standing counsel reveal that the offer of Ta mzid Ali was found to be defective as he did not sign the affidavit enclosed wit h the tender paper. The tender papers of East Katigorah Fishery Cooperative Soci ety limited was also found to be defective due to non submission of the attested copies of photograph and for filing of the affidavit without signature. It is a lso not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 did not submit the Bakijai Clearanc e Certificate though clause 4.1.7 of the detailed terms and conditions requires the submission of such certificate so that the settlement is not offered to a pe rson who is a defaulter in respect of the Govt. revenue. The respondent No. 3 having not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the NIT by not submitting the Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued by the district authori ties, despite mandatory requirement, his bid cannot be termed as valid. The resp ondent authorities, however, has issued the impugned order of settlement dated 1 7.8.2010 giving further opportunity to respondent No. 3 to submit the documents which cannot be done after the last date of submission of tender papers is over. That being the position the order of settlement dated 17.8.2010 issued by the Ma naging Director of the Corporation settling the fishery in question in favour of respondent No. 3 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Corporation for taking fresh decision in the matte r of settlement of the fishery in question which shall be done within a period o f one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order passed today to be produced by the petitioner before the Managing Director. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.