I.A. Ansari, J.- Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Se­nior Counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing counel, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel, for the respondent No.4. 2. Respondent No.3, namely, Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Cor­poration Limited, Guwahati, issued a tender notice, dated 30.07.2010, inviting tenders for settlement of some fisheries including Teliadunga Krishnasigakur Fishery. The peti­tioner society, namely, Dikhow Meen Samabai, Samity Limited, is a society regis­tered under the Assam Co-operative Societ­ies Act, which is formed by 100% actual fish­ermen belonging to Scheduled Caste com­munity and who reside in the neighbourhood of Taliadunga Krishnasigakur Fishery. Re­sponding to the tender notice, so issued, 5 tenderers including the present petitioner, namely, Dikhow Meen Samabai Samity Lim­ited, and the respondent No.4 herein, namely, Sri Dilip Hazarika, submitted their respective tenders. 3. Considering the fact that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest bidders had failed to submit valid tenders and, on finding that the petitioner Society is the highest bidder, while the re­spondent No.4, a private individual, is the 5th highest bidder, respondent No.3, namely, Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Devel­opment Corporation, recommended to the re­spondent No.2, namely, Chairman, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Guwahati, that the settlement of the said fish­ery be allowed to be made with the petitioner society. 4. In the meanwhile, however, respondent No.4 made a representation, dated 31.08.2010, addressed to the Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, stating to the effect, inter alia, that Sri Dipankar Hazarika, Secretary of the said Society, is an accused in the murder case of Bijit Gogoi, former President of Youth Congress, and was in judicial custody for 90 days before his re­lease on bail and that the case is still pending. By his said representation, respondent No.4 also requested the Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, to grant the settlement of the said fishery in his favour and, in this regard, respondent No.4 also informed the Minister aforementioned that he (respondent No.4) was ready to ac­cept settlement of the fishery at the bid value of Dipankar Hazarika, the Secretary of the said Society. On the body of the said repre­sentation, Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, re­corded, on 31.08.2010, itself, his remarks and requested the Minister, Department of Fisheries, Government of Assam, i.e. the re­spondent No.2 herein, to settle the fishery in favour of the respondent No.4. The relevant remarks made by the Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, and his report made to the Minister, Fisher­ies, read as under: "Minister Fisheries etc. Sri Dipankar Hazarika is the charge sheeted main accused in the Bijit Gogoi murder case, Bijit Gogoi was the Vice-President of Sibsagar DCC the time of his muder. I would like to re­quest you to settle the fishery with the peti­tioner". (Emphasis is added) 5. While submitting its tender, the petitioner society also submitted, along with its tender papers, the Bakijai Clearance Certificate, dated 13.08.2010, indicating that there is no due pending against the applicant. The name and the residence of the applicant of the said Certificate (Annexure-V to the writ petition) read as under: "Sri Dipanka Uazarika, S/o Late Dulu Hazarika, P.O. Bhatiapar, District Sivasagar, Secy, ofDikhow Min Samabai Samittee Ltd." 6. Subsequent to the submission of the tender papers, a Certificate was, however, issued, by the Certificate Officer, Bakijai Branch, in the establishment of Deputy Com­missioner, Sivasagar, that he Bakijai Clear­ance Certificate, which had been issued on 13.08.2010, aforementioned, was, in fact, issued in favour of Dikhow Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd., i.e. the petitioner society and that the name of the Secretary of the said Cooperative Society is Dipankar Hazarika, s/o Late Dulu Hazarika, Bhatiapar, Sivasagar. 7. The respondent No.2, namely, Chair­man, Assam Fisheries Development Corpo­ration Limited, Guwahati, considered the rec­ommendations made by the respondent No.3, namely, Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Guwahati, whereby respondent No.3 had, while recommending the case of the petitioner society, pointed out that the petitioner soci­ety was the highest bidder. Respondent No.2 also considered the fact that the Bakijai Clear­ance Certificate was originally issued in the name of Dipankar Hazarika as the Secretary of Dikhow Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd., Gourisagar, Sivasagar. Respondent No.2 also considered the fact that the Bakijai Clear­ance Certificate was originally issued in the name of Dipankar Hazarika as the Secretary of Dikhow Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd., Gourisagar, Sivasagar. Respondent No.2 fur­ther considered the representation, dated 31.08.2010, which respondent No.4 had made informing the Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, that said Dipankar Hazarika, Secretary of the petitioner society, was an accused in Bijit Gogoi's murder case and that he (i.e., respon­dent No.4) was willing to pay the same amount, as his bid value, which the petitioner society had offered to pay as their lease money. Having considered all these materi­als, respondent No.2, namely, Chairman, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Guwahati, passed an order direct­ing settlement of the said fishery, in favour of respondent No.4, for the year 2010-11, at the bid value of Rs.2,21,751/-, which was the bid value of the petitioner society. Pursu­ant to the order, so issued, respondent No.3, namely, Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation, has issued a let­ter, dated 23,09.2010, addressed to the re­spondent No.4 settling the said fishery at the value of Rs.2,21,751/-, with effect from the year 2010-11 to 2016-17 (i.e. for a period of? years). It is this order, dated 23.09.2010, which stands impugned by the petitioner society in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. While considering the present writ pe­tition, it needs to be noted that not only issu­ance of tender notice, but also the process of settlement has to be fair, just, transparent and legal. In the case at hand, respondent No. 4 approached the Minister, Handloom and Tex­tile Department, with his representation, dated 31.08.2010, and, as indicated above, re­quested him to give him the settlement as if it is the Minister, Handloom and Textile Depart­ment, who had a definite say in the matter. Though the order passed by the respondent No.2, namely, Chairman, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation, makes no refer­ence to the representation, dated 31.08,2010, aforementioned, and/or to the remarks and request made by the Minister, Handloom and Textile Department, the fact remains that the order, dated 14.09.2010, passed by the re­spondent No.2, clearly shows that the respon­dent No.2 was aware of the fact that respon­dent No.4 had offered to pay the bid value of Rs. 2,21,751/-, which was the bid value of the petitioner society, hi the face of the mate­rials on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the knowledge of the fact that respondent No.4 had offered to pay bid value of Rs.2,21,751/-, which was the bid value of the petitioner society, was apparently drawn by the respondent No.2 from the said representation, dated 31.08.2010, aforementioned of the respondent No.4 and the re­marks and recommendations made therein by the Minister, Department of Fisheries, Gov­ernment of Assam. Merely, therefore, the fact that the order, dated 14.09.2010, passed by respondent No.2, does not refer to the re­marks and/or the request made by Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Govern­ment of Assam, it cannot be said that such remarks and recommendations had no bear­ing in the decision making process of the re­spondent No.2. 9. It is trite that a judicial review of an ad­ministrative decision, even in respect of con­tractual matters, such as, settlement of lease, etc., relates to examination of the decision-making process and not the decision itself. In the case at hand, the letter, dated 31.08.2010, which had been issued by the Bakijai Officer clearly indicated that the said Bakijai certifi­cate, dated 03.12.2010, was actually issued' in favour of the petitioner society with the name of Dipankar Hazarika as the Secretary of the said society. Respondent No.2 did not, however, refer to the letter, which clarified the said Bakijai certificate, and he (respondent No.2) clearly used the said Bakijai Certifi­cate against the petitioner society by keeping excluded the latter clarificatory letter of the Bakijai officer as a cloak to keep the request of the Minister, Handloom and Textile De­partment, and make settlement in favour of the respondent No.4, though respondent No.4 is a private individual and the petitioner soci­ety is a Co-operative society formed by 100% actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Caste community, who reside in the neighbourhood of the said fishery. 10. 10. Coupled with the above, even if for a moment it is assumed that the decision, which the respondent No.2 reached on 14.09.2010, was not influenced by the request, which the Minister of Handloom & Textile Department, Government of Assam, had made in favour of respondent No.4, the fact of the matter remains that respondent No.4 had, by the representation, dated 31,08.2010, definitely acted, tried, attempted and also succeeded in influencing the decision as far as the settle­ment of the said fishery is concerned. Had the Minister of Handloom & Textile Depart­ment, Government of Assam, not made the recommendation, even then, respondent No.4, having made the attempt to influence, unduly and illegally, the decision making pro­cess of the said settlement, had disqualified himself from remaining eligible and fit to re­ceive the settlement. Anyone, who makes even an attempt to unduly influence a public au­thority, in matters of settlement of State lar­gess, such as, the said fishery, which had been sought to be settled by way of tender pro­cess, would stand disqualified from being considered for settlement or else, every tendered would try to unduly influence the course of settlement of State largess. 11. Situated thus, this Court is clearly of the view that as far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he had rendered himself unfit to receive the settlement on the day he made the said representation, irrespective of the fact as to how far the remarks and recommenda­tions made by the Minister, Handloom and Textile, Department, had influenced the deci­sion of the respondent No.2. 12. Because of what have been noted above, it becomes clear that the settlement, made in favour of the respondent No. 4, can­not survive. This does not, however, neces­sarily mean that the settlement must be made in favour of the petitioner society inasmuch as the petitioner society's case has to be con­sidered dehors the fact that t respondent No.4 was also one of the bidders. 13. Considering the fact that the respon­dent No.4 stood disqualified from receiving the settlement, the matter, now, needs to be re-examined and reconsidered by the State respondents in accordance with law. 14. 13. Considering the fact that the respon­dent No.4 stood disqualified from receiving the settlement, the matter, now, needs to be re-examined and reconsidered by the State respondents in accordance with law. 14. In the result and for the reasons dis­cussed above, while the order of settlement, dated 23.09.2010, is hereby quashed, the State respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner society as regards the settlement of the said fishery and pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law. 15. Let the records be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.