JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions involving the same fishery, one by way of challenge to the tender process and the other by way of challenge to the settlement made pursuant to the said tender process have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In the first writ petition, the Petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative society represented by the chairman of the Managing Committee, the Petitioner No. 2. The Managing Committee was constituted by Annexure-F order dated 4.5.2005 to the replacement of the earlier Managing Committee with the stipulation of holding the Annual General Meeting (AGM) within 90 days from the date of the constitution. The Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-H tender notice dated 27.6.2005 inviting sealed tenders for running the Min Mahal namely Kumotia Group Fishery Min Mahal, fixing the last date as 4.7.2005. The period of operation of the fishery is from 2005-06 to 2011-12 i.e. 31.03.2012. Earlier the fishery was settled with the Petitioner's society for a period of 5 years from 2002-03 to 2006-07 vide settlement order dated 17.8.2002 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fishery Development Corporation (Respondent No. 2). 3. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that the Respondents without first considering the prayer for re-settlement and/or to allow to run the fishery for the full term, ought not have resorted to the fresh tender process without first canceling the earlier settlement made in favour of the Petitioner. In this connection, the statements made in paragraph 13 and 21 of the writ petition are quoted below: 13. That the Petitioners respectfully state that the Respondent authority most arbitrarily and whimsically has issued tender notice dated 27.6.12005 (vide annexure-H) for the fishery in question despite the fact that the present settlement of the fishery with the Petitioners' society is for five years which will expire only in the year of 2007. 21. That the Petitioner states that the Respondent authority without first canceling the settlement dated 17.8.2002 (vide Annexure-A) passed by the Managing Director, Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. Thereby settling fishery in question with the Petitioners' society for the period of 5 years by floating tender notice dated 27.6.2005 inviting tender for giving fresh settlement in respect of fishery in question which is apparently unjust, improper and also without any authority of law. 4. 4. After the aforesaid settlement made in favour of the Petitioner's society, they made the deposits of Rs. 95,000/- each as the kist money for the first year and the second year i.e. 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, for the third year the Petitioner society could deposit only 26,000/- as against the stipulated amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The reason assigned is the flood water causing damage to the fishery. They submitted a representation dated 10.12.2004 seeking exemption from depositing the entire amount of the kist money. On the basis of the representation, report was called for. However, large number of share holders of the society being dissatisfied with the functioning of the Managing Committee and its failure to earn profit, made complaints to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who in turn suspended the Managing Committee and appointed the present Managing Committee with the Petitioner No. 2 as the chairman. After taking over charge, the new Managing Committee made representation dated 8.5.2005 to the Corporation for resettlement of the fishery and to allow two months time to deposit the balance kist money. However, in the meantime, the impugned tender notice dated 27.6.2005 having been issued, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 22.7.2005. 5. In the second writ petition, the challenge made is in respect of the order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure-I) by which the Respondent No. 3 has been settled with the fishery pursuant to the said impugned tender notice. As against the bid value of Rs. 11,02,000.00 offered by the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 offered the bid value of Rs. 18,11,000.00. According to the Petitioner the bid offered by him is a reasonable one and the bid offered by the Respondent No. 3 is unrealistic and is exorbitant. Another ground assigned towards challenging the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 is that he is an active share holder of the society and his brother Shri Bimala Das happened to be the President of the society/earlier Managing Committee, which defaulted in proper functioning of the society and consequently was dissolved/suspended by the aforesaid order dated 4.5.2005, simultaneously constituting the new Managing Committee headed by the Petitioner No. 2 as the chairman in the first writ petition. 6. 6. It appears that the settlement of the fishery made in favour of the Petitioners' society in the first writ petition was cancelled by an order dated 19.2.2005 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement on ground of failure to deposit the revenue fixed for the year 2004-05 and the possession of the fishery was taken back. Neither this order nor the order of settlement dated 22.7.2005 made in favour of the Respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition are under challenge in the first writ petition. However, by filing Misc. case No. 2411/2005, the Petitioners in the first writ petition have sought for amendment of the writ petition by way of making challenge to the order dated 19.2.2005. Although no formal amendment has been granted, but the order has been taken into consideration for adjudication of the writ petitions. 7. I have heard Mr. NC Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Bora, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the first writ petition as well as Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the second writ petition. I have also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the private Respondent. Mr. G. Uzir, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC, has made submissions on behalf of the corporation. Learned Counsel for the parties extensively argued in reference to the respective pleadings. DECISION IN W.P. (C) No. 5222/2005 8. This writ petition was filed on 22.7.2005 challenging the tender process initiated by the impugned tender notice dated 27.6.2005 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), without, however, making any challenge to the order dated 19.2.2005 (Annexure-1 to Misc. case No. 2411/2005) by which the settlement made in favour of the Petitioners' society was cancelled invoking Clause 3 of the agreement on ground of failure to deposit the revenue fixed for the year 2004-05. The Petitioners have also not chosen to challenge the order dated 22.7.2005, which has been impugned in the second writ petition altogether on a different ground. In the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 2411/2005, the amendment sought for is only in respect of the aforesaid Annexure-1 order dated 19.2.2005 and there is no whisper about the order dated 22.7.2005 by which the settlement has been made in favour of the private Respondent. 9. In the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 2411/2005, the amendment sought for is only in respect of the aforesaid Annexure-1 order dated 19.2.2005 and there is no whisper about the order dated 22.7.2005 by which the settlement has been made in favour of the private Respondent. 9. At the time of filing the writ petition, challenging the tender notice dated 27.6.2005, the tender process was already complete and the settlement was finalized. The primary ground of assailing the tender notice is that the earlier settlement made in favour of the Petitioners' society being still in existence and having not been cancelled, the fresh tender process could not have been initiated. The relevant paragraphs taking the stand have been quoted above. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the private Respondent rightly argued that such statements made in the writ petition are misleading and by way of suppression of material fact. The new Managing Committee of the society represented by the Petitioner No. 2 as the chairman came into existence by Annexure-F order dated 4.5.2005 to the replacement of the earlier Managing Committee which was suspended solely on the ground of malfunctioning and failure to deposit the kist money for running the fishery in question. In the order it was clearly stated that the allotment of the fishery to the society was cancelled by the order dated 19.2.2005. Thus, it cannot be said that the basis on which the new Managing Committee came into existence as reflected in the order dated 4.5.2005 by which the new Managing Committee was constituted was not known to the Petitioners. However, by making the statements as mentioned above, they were successful in obtaining the interim order dated 29.7.2005 directing the parties to maintain status quo. As a consequence thereof, the fishery is not being run by the private Respondent inspite of the settlement made in his favour. 10. On the above ground of misleading the Court and there being suppression of material fact, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise also, there being no challenge to the order of settlement made in favour of the private Respondent, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Irrespective of such technicality, although a strong ground for dismissal of the writ petition, even on merit also, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Even otherwise also, there being no challenge to the order of settlement made in favour of the private Respondent, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Irrespective of such technicality, although a strong ground for dismissal of the writ petition, even on merit also, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. There is no dispute that the society with whom initially the settlement was made defaulted in making the payment of kist money. There was also mass scale complaints against the functioning of the then Managing Committee. As a consequence, the society incurred loss of Rs. 2,84,649/-. Considering all these, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam constituted the new ad hoc Committee by order dated 4.5.2005 clearly mentioning in the order about the cancellation of the settlement of the fishery with the society by order dated 19.2.2005. The society did not make any challenge to the order dated 19.2.2005 and it was only after constitution of the new ad hoc committee to the replacement of the earlier committee by order dated 4.5.2005, the Petitioners' made the purported representation dated 8.5.2005 seeking re-settlement of the fishery with the prayer to grant two months more time to deposit the revenue. There was no question of consideration of the prayer for re-settlement inasmuch as the settlement was already cancelled by the aforesaid order dated 19.2.2005. The society had accepted the cancellation. However, the new Managing Committee has made a challenge to the tender notice and the facts and circumstances involving the same have been discussed above. Thus, the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief. DECISION IN W.P. (C) No. 6021/2005 11. There is no dispute that although there were five contenders for the fishery, but eventually, it was the Petitioner and the private Respondent who remained in the fray. As against the bid value of Rs. 11,02,000/- offered by the petitioner, the private respondent offered the bid value of Rs. 18,11,000/-. Thus, on the face of it, the private respondent having offered much higher revenue than the petitioner, he is entitled to get the settlement and the respondents have also settled the fishery with him. The two grounds assigned for making the challenge to the same have been mentioned above. 18,11,000/-. Thus, on the face of it, the private respondent having offered much higher revenue than the petitioner, he is entitled to get the settlement and the respondents have also settled the fishery with him. The two grounds assigned for making the challenge to the same have been mentioned above. They are - (i) the amount of revenue offered by the private respondents is unrealistic and exorbitant and thus there will be eventual failure to pay the full kist money for the successive years of settlement; (ii) the private respondent being an active share holder of the society and also being related to the President of the society (brother), a favour shown to him cannot be ruled out. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made in the order of settlement. The observations are that the private respondent would required to submit an undertaking that he is not a member of the society and that he would have no connection with his brother Sri Bimala Das, who was the President of the society. 12. During the course of hearing, Mr. Uzir, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation by way of production of records has confirmed that the private Respondent is not a member of the society. He has discontinued his membership from January, 2005 and the society has accepted the same. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel representing the said Respondent has also confirmed the same. Apart from the fact that the private Respondent is no longer a member of the society, there is also no bar for a member of the society to get the settlement if he fulfills all the requisite criteria. Nothing could be shown that a member of the society is not entitled to submit tender and/or to get settlement of the fishery. As regards the plea that the private Respondent is related Shri Bimala Das, the President of the society, the indication made in the settlement order would rather go to show transparency on the part of the corporation. The corporation wanted to ensure that the private Respondent does not maintain any connection with his brother in respect of running the fishery. Moreover, the order of settlement only stipulates that the private Respondent will have to give an undertaking of not maintaining any relationship with his brother in respect of running the fishery. 13. The corporation wanted to ensure that the private Respondent does not maintain any connection with his brother in respect of running the fishery. Moreover, the order of settlement only stipulates that the private Respondent will have to give an undertaking of not maintaining any relationship with his brother in respect of running the fishery. 13. The plea of the Petitioner in respect of the above is only on conjecture, surmises and presumption without establishing any link between the settlement and the relationship of the private Respondent with his brother. If this plea of the Petitioner is to be accepted, same will lead to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely on presumption of the Petitioner without anything more, such plea is wholly untenable. No colourable exercise of power towards making the settlement has also been alleged and the brother of the private Respondent is also not party to this proceedings. 14. The other ground of challenge is also on presumption. According to the Petitioner the bid value offered by the private Respondent is exorbitant and not workable. It is the apprehension of the Petitioner that the private Respondent after running the fishery for first few years at the much lesser revenue/kist money fixed by the corporation, would abandon the fishery for the remaining period for which the kist money is in the higher side. Such a plea of the Petitioner cannot be accepted merely on the basis of presumption and the apprehension expressed. It is for the corporation to fix the kist money/revenue for the years of operation of the fishery in the manner and method best suitable to it. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the corporation to fix the revenue/kist money for the years of operation keeping in mind the earning of the society and to protect its revenue from any default. For the reasons recorded as above, this writ petition also merits dismissal. 15. In view of the above, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The corporation shall now go ahead to implement the order of settlement made in favour of the private Respondent. Petition dismissed