JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The matter pertains to settlement of a fishery namely Baya Meenmahal in the district of Hailakandi, for which NIT dated 27.4.2012 was issued by the Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation). Pursuant to process that followed thereafter, the fishery was settled with the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure-8) at his bid value of Rs. 61,000/-. According to the respondent No. 3, pursuant to the said order of settlement, he deposited the kist money on 28.9.2012 and took the possession of the fishery on 29.9.2012. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 1.10.2012, an interim order having been passed staying the operation of the said settlement order dated 27.9.2012, the respondent No. 3 has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 2992/2012 seeking vacation of the said interim order. When the said application was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the parties in fact argued the main writ petition and agreed for final disposal of the writ petition. 2. I have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. I have also heard Mr. S.R. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the file in which the impugned decision has been taken. 3. According to the petitioner, the tender documents, which he was to submit on the date fixed (last date 15.5.2012) having been lost on his way to a particular place to come to Guwahati to submit the tender papers, he has lodged an FIR narrating the said fact. Resultantly, he could not submit the tender on the date fixed i.e. 15.5.2012. However, he could submit his tender quoting his bid value of Rs. 2,05,700/- on 21.5.2012. Be it stated here that the last of submission of tender, which was earlier fixed as 15.5.2012 was extended upto 21.5.2012. 4. Stating the aforesaid fact, it is the case of the petitioner that since his earlier tender could not be submitted, his subsequent tender quoting the bid value of Rs. 2,05,700/-ought to have accepted by the authority. 5. Be it stated here that the last of submission of tender, which was earlier fixed as 15.5.2012 was extended upto 21.5.2012. 4. Stating the aforesaid fact, it is the case of the petitioner that since his earlier tender could not be submitted, his subsequent tender quoting the bid value of Rs. 2,05,700/-ought to have accepted by the authority. 5. As the records have revealed that in he earlier tender, which according to the petitioner was lost on the way to the particular place, the bid amount quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 51,000/-, a fact that has been denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the amount offered by the respondent No. 3 is Rs. 61,000/-. 6. The whole controversy is as to whether the earlier tender which was to be submitted by the petitioner in fact was lost and resultantly he could not be submit and that the second tender quoting a much higher bid ought to have been accepted by the authority. 7. When the authority prepared the comparative statement of the tenderer and decided to settle the fishery with the respondent No. 3, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3180/2012. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 1.8.2012 recording the above controversy and directing the respondent corporation to consider the tenders on merit. It was further provided that as there was dispute regarding submission of two tenders by the petitioner, the respondent corporation should also examine that aspect of the matter and pass necessary order. 8. Pursuant to the said earlier round of litigation, the Managing Director of the respondent corporation having passed the impugned Annexure-7 order dated 21.9.2012 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and upholding the settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, in which the aforesaid interim order dated 1.10.2012 is now operating seeking vacation of which the respondent No. 3 has filed Misc. Case No. 2992/2012. 9. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that on 14.5.2012 evening, he had started from his house by bicycle along with a bag containing the tender documents for onward submission at Guwahati and on his way he lost the said bag. Accordingly, on 15.5.2012, he lodged an FIR with Katakhal Out Post stating the said fact. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that on 14.5.2012 evening, he had started from his house by bicycle along with a bag containing the tender documents for onward submission at Guwahati and on his way he lost the said bag. Accordingly, on 15.5.2012, he lodged an FIR with Katakhal Out Post stating the said fact. A copy of the said FIR has been annexed to the Misc. Application No. 2992/2012, on perusal of which the said plea of the petitioner stands contradicted. As per the FIR, he lost the tender documents on 15.5.2012. While referring to the documents in the FIR, the petitioner only stated about the call deposit and not the tender itself. It will be pertinent to mention here at this stage that in an application filed before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation also, the petitioner stated about the alleged incident of 14.5.2012 and FIR filed on 15.5.2012. It is in this connection, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3 has referred to the statement made in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) 3180/2012, a copy of which has been annexed to the Misc. Application as Annexure-H. 10. In paragraph 3 of the earlier writ petition, the clear statement made is that it was on 15.5.2012, the petitioner had lost the documents while coming to Guwahati. Per contra, in the present writ petition as well as in the aforesaid documents, the stand of the petitioner is that he has lost the call deposit on 14.5.2012 and consequently lodged the Fir on 15.5.2012. 11. In the Misc. Application filed by the respondent No. 3, it has been clearly demonstrated that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is not at all factually correct, inasmuch as, the petitioner was very much available in Guwahati on 15.5.2012. In this connection, the specific statement made in paragraph 18 of the Misc. application, is quoted below:- 18. That the applicant begs to state that the alleged loss of call deposits is absolutely false and concocted because: (i) That stand taken by the writ petition in para 4 of the present writ petition being WP(C) No. 4683/2012 that he had lost the said documents on evening of 14.5.2012 is self contradictory with the ejahar dated 15.5.2012, police report dated 18.5.2012 and para 3 of his earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 3180/2012. It is to be mentioned herein that in para 3 of the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 3180/2012, the writ petitioner took a different stand that he lost the said documents on 15.5.2012. (ii) The hotel register maintained by the Dispur Guest House at Guwahati conforms that the writ petitioner had booked a room in his name there (Room No. 10) on 14.5.2012 and he stayed up to 16/5/2012 in the said hotel. In this period, he was in Dispur Guest House along with two others namely Saidur Rahman and Jamiruddin. (iii) On 14.5.2012 the writ petitioner himself deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- before the respondent No. 2 in respect of another fishery enjoyed by him namely Bansauti-16 through CDR No. 18441. The above facts clearly expose the fact that the writ petitioner was all along present in Guwahati from 14.5.2012to 16.5.2012 and the story of loss of his earlier tender papers along with call deposits is proved to be absolutely false, concocted and same has been made out just to get illegal gain. 12. Although, the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the said Misc. Application, there is absolutely no response to the aforesaid averments made in paragraph 18 of the Misc. Application. Thus, the facts stated in paragraph 18 go unrefuted. However, Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition submits that the facts stated in paragraph 18 of the Misc. Application having already been dealt with in the said paragraph, there was no further requirement to deal with the said plea of the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the statements made is in respect of the hearing that took place before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The statement made in paragraph 10 relates to what transpired during the course of hearing. According to the said statement, the plea raised in aforesaid paragraph 18 of the Misc. Application was also raised during the course of hearing and that the said plea was resisted by the petitioner. Be that as it may, when the specific averment has been made in the Misc. According to the said statement, the plea raised in aforesaid paragraph 18 of the Misc. Application was also raised during the course of hearing and that the said plea was resisted by the petitioner. Be that as it may, when the specific averment has been made in the Misc. Application with documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was very much available in Guwahati on 14.5.2012and 15.5.2012, it was the duty of the petitioner to rebut the same instead of reverting back to the aforesaid paragraph in the writ petition, which relates to only what transpired during the course of hearing in the office of the respondent Corporation. 13. The documents that has been annexed in support of the contentions raised in paragraph 18 of the Misc. Application are the Register of Dispur Guest House (Hotel), in which clear signature of the petitioner appears showing his date of arrival on 14.5.2012. The other documents annexed to the application relate to the particular deposit made by the petitioner on 15.5.2012 in respect of another fishery that has been settled with him. Thus, the said two documents clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was very much available at Guwahati on both the dates i.e. 14.5.2012 and 15.5.2012. If that be so, the FIR dated 15.5.2012 is the product of forgery. 14. Another important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner in his representation made to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation while stating about the purported loss of the tender documents on 15.5.2012, also stated that the said tender documents were put in the tender box by somebody else. However, in the said representation, there is no whether that there was any manipulation in the tender documents. On perusal of the first tender submitted by the petitioner, it is found that his quoted rate was 51,000/-. However, the petitioner has now contended that such a rate was not the actual rate quoted by him but was manipulated by some one else. However, on being asked as to what was the rate quoted by the petitioner in his first tender, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer the same. 15. From the above factual aspect of the matter, it is abundantly clear that the plea of losing first tender on way to Katakhal is an after thought. It is in this connection, Mr. 15. From the above factual aspect of the matter, it is abundantly clear that the plea of losing first tender on way to Katakhal is an after thought. It is in this connection, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the whole design was orchested by the petitioner when on the earlier last date of submission of tender i.e. 15.5.2012, the rates quoted by the tenderers had been discussed. According to him, when the petitioner could come to know about the rates quoted by the others including that of the respondent No. 3, he made out the story of losing the earlier tender documents and submitted the second tender quoting an exorbitant rate so as to frustrate the claim of others. 16. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the Misc. Application, the respondent No. 3 demonstrated that the petitioner has been running the fishery for the last about 10 (ten) years at the rate quoted in paragraph 21 of the said application. If we go by the rates at which the petitioner earlier enjoyed the fishery, the rates quoted by the respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be in the lower side rather it is 30,000/- more than the rate quoted in the year 2010-2011 (Rs. 31,000/-). Another aspect of the matter which the respondent No. 3 has brought on record is the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Minister, PHE and the Minister, State (I) Corporation and Border Area. According to Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the respondent Corporation did not yield to such extraneous pressure and pass the impugned order judiciously. 17. I have very carefully considered the impugned order in which all the relevant facts have been stated. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Managing Director of the respondent corporation rightly disbelieved the story made out by the petitioner for an unlawful gain I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The fact finding authority having gone into the relevant facts, based on which the impugned order has been passed, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not inclined to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim order passed on 1.10.2012 stands vacated. Petition dismissed