JUDGMENT 1. This Court had issued notice returnable on 20th August, 2008. Learned Govt. Pleader had waived service for all respondents, except respondent no.3, who has been served. Contesting parties have filed affidavits. 2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard by consent. 3. Challenge in the petition is to the allotment of Upper Wardha Reservoir, an Irrigation Tank, for fishing lease for five years in favour of respondent no.3. 4. For allotment of contract in question, a meeting of the Allotment Committee was held on 8th July, 2008. Fishing lease was to be allotted to highest bidder. Six bidders had participated, and the details of bids were recorded by District Fishery Officer, Amravati, and the same were placed before the Committee. 5. The offers were scrutinized as to the eligibility of the bidder in terms of the norms prescribed by the Govt.. 6. Petitioner's allegation is that the respondent no.3 was not eligible, as it did not comply with the statutory requirement of audit. Moreover, it was registered, i.e., born as a legal entity, only after the bids were completed and hence it's offer could not have been considered at all. 7. Next ground of challenge is that Shri Wasudeorao Surjuse, Chairman of Respondent No.3, was nominated to be the person who was entrusted with the responsibility of finalizing the bids and allotment, and hence, he was thereby bound to have a bias against other bidders and a favour to his own Society. 8. The petition has been opposed. Certain facts, which are not denied and which are crucial to the petition are as follows:- [1] Shri Wasudeorao Surjuse was nominated to be In-charge of the matter of finalizing bids. [2] Shri Wasudeorao Surjuse is the Chairman of respondent no.3. [3] Fishing lease has been allotted to respondent no.3. [4] Respondent no.3 was registered after the bidding. 9. In the afore-mentioned admitted premise, it is clear that the Committee, who undertook the scrutiny and decided the allotment, was headed by Shri Wasudeorao Surjuse, Chairman of respondent no.3, who had, by virtue of his interest in respondent no.3, and had inherent bias against other bidders. Thus, scrutiny and acceptance of bids was, therefore, not fair. 10. 9. In the afore-mentioned admitted premise, it is clear that the Committee, who undertook the scrutiny and decided the allotment, was headed by Shri Wasudeorao Surjuse, Chairman of respondent no.3, who had, by virtue of his interest in respondent no.3, and had inherent bias against other bidders. Thus, scrutiny and acceptance of bids was, therefore, not fair. 10. It is seen that the impugned allotment is dated 10th July, 2008, present petition is filed on 1st August, 2008 and reply of the respondent no.3 is filed on 20th August, 2008. 11. During oral submissions, learned Advocate Mr. C.S. Kaptan, who appeared for respondent no.3, argued that the respondent no.3-Society has invested a huge amount furtherance to the tender lease which was granted. Nothing of the sort in specific now urged before this Court in terms of investment is suggested or brought on record and the submissions are vague. Moreover, if any investment is done by the respondent no.3, respondent no.3 has done it at its own risk. 12. In the result, petition is liable to be allowed on the sole ground of bias. 13. In the circumstances, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute and the impugned allotment of fishing lease [Annexure-C] dated 10th July, 2008 done by the respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 shall proceed with the fresh auction expeditiously, and complete it within six weeks from today. Respondent No.3 is allowed to continue to operate the present contract for a further period of six weeks, or till the fresh contract is awarded, whichever is earlier. 14. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs.