WP(C) 3362/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RK Bora, le arned Sr. State Counsel for the State respondents. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order of settlement of the fishery, namely, Patia Nadiya Meem Mahal in favour of respondent No.7 fo r the year 2009-10 who is the second highest bidder as offered a bid of Rs, 26,1 21/- although the instant petitioner was the highest bidder. Although notice upon respondent No.7 was duly served by Registered Post but he p referred not to contest the proceeding. The Block Development Officer, Majuli Development Block, Majuli i.e. the respond ent No.3 has filed counter. The stand of the Respondent No.3 is that the bid of fered by the petitioner amounting to Rs.33,101/- is excessive bid and hence his bid can not be accepted. It is the further stand of the respondent No.3 in the counter that as the Standing Settlement Committee has laid down, an opinion is made that the bid which is 20% to 40% above the Government value, would be consi dered as excessive bid. The Govt. value of the fishery being Rs.3,000/-, under the aforesaid policy the respondent No.7 is also not entitled to run the fishery. It appears that if suc h policy would be adopted, the same shall not be adhering to by the respondents. The Panchayat Authority is to settle the fishery, market etc. for the purpose of earning revenue. It is difficult to find out any rational as to how the bid am ount of the petitioner’s offer amounting Rs.33,101/- is stated to be excessive w hile the offer of respondent No.7 is Rs.26,151/-. The settlement of the fishery with the highest bidder is the rule and in case of non acceptance of such, the prior and formal permission of the Government is ne cessary which is not done in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid situation, the impugned order of settlement of fishery in question in favour of respondent No.7 is hereby set aside and quashed. The Panchayat Authority is directed to settle the fishery in question in favour of the present petitioner by passing appropriate order within a period of 7(seve n) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent authorities are also directed not to allow the respondent No.7 to fis h in the fishery in question. The writ petition is allowed to extent as indicated above.