JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. All the three writ petitions pertaining to settlement of No. 1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery, a 60% category fishery, which is required to be settled under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, with 100% actual fishermen groups, who are located in the district and neighbourhood of the fishery, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The case has a chequered history as follows. By NIT dated 19.1.2006, the Govt. invited tenders for settlement of the fishery for a period of 7(seven) years w.e.f. 11.3.2006 to 10.3.2013. On completion of the tender process, the settling authority, upon examination of the 4(four) tenders received in response to the NIT, declared that one M/s. Kachudola Society, despite being the highest bidder at Rs. 35,15,644/-, having not submitted, interalia, the most important certificate i.e. Neighbourhood certificate, was not entitled to get consideration for settlement. The fishery was settled with one M/s. Manash Society, at its bid value of Rs. 12,40,632/-. The settlement was put to challenge by M/s. Kachudola Society by filling a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1507/2006. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.3.2006, setting aside the settlement made in favour of M/s. Manash Society and the matter was remanded back to the settling authority for a fresh decision, after enabling the petitioner's society to furnish the requisite documents for want of which, its tender was rejected. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the settling authority once again examined the matter and permitted M/s. Kachudola Society to submit 3 (three) vital certificates and thereafter in consideration of those certificates and in view of its higher bid of Rs. 35,14,644/-, settled the fishery with it. In the order of settlement dated 15.5.2006, Clause-2 of the NIT requiring a tenderer to be of the concerned district was noted. Be it stated here that the fishery traverses through 3 (three) districts: 17.66% falls in Bongaigaon district; 76.30% falls in Goalpara district and 6.04% falls within Dhubri district. Be it also stated here that these three districts have been bifurcated from the earlier composite Dhubri district but the settlement process still vests with the district authorities of Dhubri district. 3. The aforesaid order of settlement dated 15.5.2006 was put to challenge by M/s. Manash Society in WP(C) No. 2501/2006. Be it also stated here that these three districts have been bifurcated from the earlier composite Dhubri district but the settlement process still vests with the district authorities of Dhubri district. 3. The aforesaid order of settlement dated 15.5.2006 was put to challenge by M/s. Manash Society in WP(C) No. 2501/2006. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 14.2.2008, holding that the settling authorities passed the order of settlement without making an enquiry or giving a finding in respect of the claim of M/s. Kachudola Society that it is in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The order of settlement having been set aside, the matter was again remanded back to the settling authority for giving a fresh decision. Pursuant to the judgment and order, the matter was considered again by the settling authority and by order dated 5.4.2008 the fishery was once again settled with M/s. Kachudola Society. That time also, the settlement was challenged by filing WP(C) No. 1566/2008. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2009, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to initiate fresh settlement process by issuing a fresh NIT with the following observation. 23. It is seen that even after 3 attempts, the Settling Authority has failed to resolve the issue that arise in the instant case and in the process, the settlement could not be made operational even 3 1/2 years after issuance of the NIT dated 19.1.2006. In the meantime, the parties have been litigating and despite two rounds of litigation, the impugned settlement granted in favour of M/s. Kachudola Society does not appear to be in conformity with the requirement of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. 24. Considering the passage of time and the fact that more than half of the settlement period is already over, instead of remanding the matter for a fresh settlement exercise in pursuant to the NIT dated 19.1.2006, I feel that interest of public and justice would be served, if the respondents are directed to initiate a fresh settlement process by issuing a fresh NIT for settlement of the No. 1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery, in terms of the Fishery Rules. It is ordered accordingly. 4. After the said developments, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri in the Revenue (Fishery Branch), issued the NIT dated 16.12.2009 inviting tenders for settlement of the fishery. It is ordered accordingly. 4. After the said developments, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri in the Revenue (Fishery Branch), issued the NIT dated 16.12.2009 inviting tenders for settlement of the fishery. Some of the conditions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties are quoted below:- 2. Tenders can be submitted by the Cooperative Societies, Self Help Groups, NGO's comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Schedule Caste community or Maimal Community of Barak Valley. Tenderer has to be of that district and neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. 3. Tenders will be accepted in the concerned office of the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-divisional Officer on the fixed date. 4. Intending tenderers have to submit tenders in the concerned Box by 2 P.M. on 21.01.2010 in the concerned office and no tender will be accepted after the time fixed. Tenders have to be submitted along with requisites/certificates as mentioned below:- (a) Fishing experience certificate, (b) Bakijai clearance certificate, (c) Schedule Caste Certificate/Maimal Community Certificate and certificate of actual fisherman, (d) Postal Order/cheque/bank draft of Rs. 10/-. (e) Revenue deposit of 15% of the Government yearly value. (f) Society Registration Certificate, (g) Tax clearance certificate, (h) Photo of the person authorized to submit tender on behalf of the society. (i) A copy of the Balance Sheet of the society. (j) List of name, address and age of the members of the society. (k) Certificate showing the distance/area from the concerned Min Mahal. The Deputy Commissioner will enquire the settlement by the concerned Magistrate in time. 6. Tenders will be opened after the submission time is over in presence of the bidders or their representatives. 5. In response to the said NIT, all the three petitioners involved in these writ petitions and the private respondent M/s. Gauripur Cooperative Fishery Society Ltd. of Dhubri district, with whom the impugned settlement has been made submitted their tenders. However, before the settlement could be made, the petitioner in WP(C) 297/2012, namely M/s. Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Cooperative Society Ltd. filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 872/2011, making a grievance against rejection of his tender on the ground of non-submission of the following documents:- (i) Members list of the society, (ii) 100% SC actual fishermen certificate, (iii) Fishing experience certificate, (iv) Approved managing committee's resolution of the society. 6. 6. In the said writ petition, it was admitted by the petitioner that although the last date of submission of the tenders was 21.1.2010 upto 2pm and that the tenders were to be opened at 3 pm, but it had submitted certain certificates on 22.1.2010. However, by that tine after opening of the tenders, comparative statements, etc were prepared. It was contended that the documents submitted by it after opening of the tenders and preparation of comparative statement, ought to have been accepted towards consideration of its bid on its own merit. 7. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 22.1.2011 holding it to be premature as the Govt. was yet to take a decision in the matter. It was held that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the settling authority to proceed with the settlement process by considering the tenders received from the tenderers in accordance with law and thereafter to pass necessary order of settlement. Noticing the fact that there was considerable delay in making the settlement and that the fishery was being managed through interim arrangement, it was provided that the authority would pass the settlement order within four weeks. Thereafter, the Governor of Assam passed the impugned Annexure-13 order dated 26.12.2011 settling the fishery with the private respondent, namely. M/s. Gauripur Cooperative Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M/s. Gauripur Society at its bid value of Rs. 23,94,707/-. Be it stated here that the bid offered by the petitioner stands at Rs. 98,00,000/-, while the bids offered by the other two writ petitioners involved in WP(C) No. 34/2012 (M/s. Kachudola Society) and Rs. 22,78,970/- involved in WP(C) No. 687/2013 (M/s. Manash Society), respectively. 8. By the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 while settling the fishery with the private respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 297/2012 i.e. M/s. Gauripur Society (4th highest bidder) with the observation that it has submitted all the required documents, so far as the petitioner's society is concerned, it has teen observed that M/s. Khoraghat Society did not submit the aforementioned 4 (four) certificates including 100% actual SC Fishermen Certificate. As regard the other two petitioners, namely, M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Manash Society, it has been observed that the said two societies reside/fall in other districts other than the Dhubri District. 9. As regard the other two petitioners, namely, M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Manash Society, it has been observed that the said two societies reside/fall in other districts other than the Dhubri District. 9. The aforesaid findings recorded in the impugned order of settlement has been challenged by M/s. Khoraghat Society on the ground that it being the highest bidder, the fishery ought to have been settled with it as it had cured the defects in its tender subsequently. According to the petitioner, the defects indicated in the impugned order are not essential eligibility conditions but only ancillary/subsidiary conditions of eligibility and can be cured even after opening of tenders and preparation of comparative statements. 10. The other two petitioners, namely, M/s. Kachudola Cooperative Society Ltd. and M/s. Manash Cooperative Society, have challenged the settlement order made in favour of M/s. Gauripur Society on the ground that their exclusion on the ground of being not resident of Dhubri district and/or being resident of other districts is illegal. Referring to the percentage of area of operation indicted above, it is the case of the petitioners that although the tender process was initiated by the DC, Dhubri, their tenders ought to have been considered irrespective of whether they are resident of Dhubri or not. In WP(C) No. 34/2012 involving M/s. Kachudola Society, even a challenge has been made to the tender condition requiring that the society should be a resident of the district. In WP(C) 687/2013 (M/s. Manash Society), the petitioner has prayed for its consideration in the event of considering the case of M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Khoraghat Society. 11. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing M/s. Khoraghat Society involved in WP(C)No. 297/2012, submitted that the petitioner having submitted the required documents, although after opening of the tenders, the said documents ought to have been accepted by the authority as the requirement of the said documents was not the essential condition but only ancillary/subsidiary conditions, Placing reliance on the order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Division Bench in WA 294/2011 (Abu Talib vs. AFDC), in which the authority was allowed to rectify the defect of submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate, to be cured, held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner or to the public revenue. He submitted that as in the said case in the instant case also, the settling authority ought to have accepted the certificates produced by the petitioner at a later stage, more particularly, when it has offered the highest bid of Rs. 98,00,000/-. 12. Opposing the said argument, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 7 i.e. M/s. Gauripur Society, with whom the settlement has been made, submitted that the petitioner is precluded from raising any grievance, inasmuch as, as per its own admission, its tender papers did not accompany the essential documents. He submitted that the rate offered by the petitioner is also exorbitant as compared to the amount at which the earlier settlement was made. Placing reliance on the following decisions, he submitted that this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not sit on appeal over the particular discretion exercised by the settling authority as reflected in the impugned order:- (1) AIR 1991 SC 1579 , Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & other (2) (2000) 5 SCC 287 , Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & other (3) (2000) 2 SCC 617 , Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd & other (4) (1990) 2 SCC 486 , Ram Gajadhar Nishad vs. State of U.P. & other (5) (2009) 11 SCC 9 , Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd. & another (6) (2011) 5 SCC 103 , Glodyne Techniserve Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & other (7) (2007) 14 SCC 517, Jagdish Mandai vs. State of Orissa & other (8) (2010) 1 SCC 139 , BECIL vs. Arraycom India Ltd. & other (9) 2003(2) GLT 485, Bikash Bora vs. State of Assam & other (10) 2005(3) GLT 580, Benjamin Lalrinawma vs. State of Mizoram & other (11) 2009(3) GLT 144, Mahananda Gogoi vs. State of Assam & other (12) 2011 (2) GLT 389, Bimal Das vs. AFDC & other 13. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel representing the petitioner M/s. Kachudola Society involved in WP(C) 34/2012 submitted that the settling authority ought to have considered the tender submitted by the petitioner keeping in mind the area of operation of the fishery within the vicinity of the petitioner's society. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel representing the petitioner M/s. Kachudola Society involved in WP(C) 34/2012 submitted that the settling authority ought to have considered the tender submitted by the petitioner keeping in mind the area of operation of the fishery within the vicinity of the petitioner's society. According to him, the imposition of the condition in the NIT that the society will have to be from the same district is opposed to the provisions of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. 14. Countering the said arguments, Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Pallavi Sharma, learned counsel representing the private respondent, submitted that the bid offered by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, unrealistic and imaginary and there is every possibility of the petitioner becoming a defaulter. He also submitted that the observation made in the order dated 31.7.2009 passed in WP(C) 1566/2008, referred to above, takes care of the plea of the other two petitioners that irrespective of their societies being in other districts and the tender process was initiated by the authority in Dhubri district, their tenders ought to have been considered. 15. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Manash Society involved in the third writ petition being WP(C) 687/2013 adopting the arguments advanced by M/s. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel representing M/s. Kachudola Society, also submitted that the petitioner's tender ought to have been considered. He further submitted that if the pleas advanced by M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Khoraghat Society, are accepted, then in that case the tenders submitted by the petitioner should also be considered. 16. Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel by producing the relevant records submitted that the impugned decision of settling the fishery with M/s. Gauripur Society is legally valid and sustainable in law. He submitted that the tenderers having submitted their tenders with their eyes open to the conditions stipulated therein, cannot now turn around the same so as to take the plea that the defects, if any, are curable and that irrespective of the districts in which their societies are situated, they are entitled to get consideration in respect of the settlement in the concerned district i.e. Dhubri district. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record including the file that has been produced by Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record including the file that has been produced by Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel. 18. As to what was the plea of M/s. Khoraghat Society in its earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 872/2011 disposed of by order dated 22.11.2011, holding the same to be pre-mature has been noted above. The last date of submission of tender was 21.2.2010 upto 2 p.m. It was only thereafter the petitioner's society submitted its documents on 22.1.2010. As to what are the documents has also been noted above. The NIT was issued on 15.12.2009 and admittedly the tender submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the four documents indicated above. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner itself has stated that the tender was to be accompanied, amongst others, a list of members of the tendering cooperative society and that the same to be an authentic document containing the names and address of all the members of the society, duly approved by the appropriate office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It has also been admitted that while submitting the tender on 21.2.2010, it could not submit the said document as the same was applied for on 18.1.2010 from the office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri. 19. It is in the above context, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 7 submitted that although the NIT was issued on 15.12.2009, the petitioner's society kept on waiting till the last hour (18.1.2010) and thereafter submitted the same to the authority but by that time, everything was over i.e. opening of the bids and preparation of the comparative statement, etc. 20. Above apart and as reflected in the earlier order of this Court dated 22.11.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 872/2011, the petitioner also did not submit (1) 100% SC actual Fishermen Certificate; (2) Fishing Experience Certificate and (3) Approved Managing Committee's resolution of the Society. 21. As per the tender conditions noted above, tenderer was to accompany the requisite certificates indicated in the NIT which included Fishing Experience Certificate, SC Certificate and Certificate of Actual Fishermen; the list of names and address and age of the members of the Society etc. 21. As per the tender conditions noted above, tenderer was to accompany the requisite certificates indicated in the NIT which included Fishing Experience Certificate, SC Certificate and Certificate of Actual Fishermen; the list of names and address and age of the members of the Society etc. Upon verification of the records what I have found is that the tenders submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the duly approved resolution of its society authorizing its Secretary Shri Dulal Chandra Sarkar to submit tender. On the other hand, the tender submitted by M/s. Gauripur Society Ltd. did contain the duly approved resolution of the society authorizing its Secretary Shri Debendra Nath Sarkar to submit the tender. The resolution was approved by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri. Such approval is essential, inasmuch as, in absence of any such approval, any person purportedly representing a society could submit tender, although not duly authorized by the Cooperative society. Even otherwise also in the activities of a Cooperative Society, its resolutions are required to be approved by the authority acting under the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam. 22. Apart from the above deficiencies, the tender submitted by the petitioner was also not accompanied by Fishing Experience Certificate; 100% SC Actual Fishermen and their livelihood is fishing and the approved member list of the Society. On scrutiny of the tender submitted by the petitioner, it is found that the fishing experience certificate was issued by the Sub-divisional Fishery Development Officer, Bilasipara on 4.1.2010 but not by an authority under the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam. That apart, the requirement of being 100% SC actual fishermen and their livelihood is fishing was also not enclosed along with the tender documents. As to what is the position relating to the list of members of the society has been noted above. Admittedly, the tender submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the said membership list. It was only after opening of the bids and preparation of the comparative statement, the petitioner had submitted the said list which the authority declined to accept. Par contra, the respondent No. 7 i.e., M/s. Gauripur Society submitted its tender accompanied by 100% actual fishermen belong to SC community Certificate of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri and all other documents along with the list of members and the approved resolution of the society in respect of submission of tender. 23. Par contra, the respondent No. 7 i.e., M/s. Gauripur Society submitted its tender accompanied by 100% actual fishermen belong to SC community Certificate of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri and all other documents along with the list of members and the approved resolution of the society in respect of submission of tender. 23. In Poddar Steel Corporation (supra), the Apex Court classifying the requirement of tender notice into non-essential or ancillary, held that if it is essential, the same is required to be enforced rigidly but in the later case the same may be deviated from. In Monarch, Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court set aside the award of contract to a tenderer who at the time of submission of tender did not satisfy one of the conditions of eligibility, which was subsequently deleted after the expiry of the time limit for submission of tenders but before opening thereof. In Air India Ltd (supra), emphasising on the need to comply with the norms, standards and procedure in awarding contract by State or its instrumentality, it was held by the Apex Court that the State can choose its own method. It was further held that the Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority and the Court should exercise its discretionary power with great caution and only in furtherance of overwhelming public interest. In the said case, the Apex Court having noticed that the limited global competitive bidding having been accepted on the last date fixed, it was not open to the authority to initiate negotiation with another party behind the back of the other party and thereby permitting the said party to revise its offer. 24. In Ram Gajadhar Nishad (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the non-submission of the solvency certificate within the last date of submission of tender and current character certificate as required by the tender conditions having not been complied with, the tender submitted by the particular party, could not have been accepted. In Sorathi Builders (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with late submission of the pre-qualification documents and the effect thereof. In the said case, the respondent No. 1 had submitted certain documents after 3 days of the last date of submission. Although his bid was lower than that of the appellant, the same was rejected. In Sorathi Builders (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with late submission of the pre-qualification documents and the effect thereof. In the said case, the respondent No. 1 had submitted certain documents after 3 days of the last date of submission. Although his bid was lower than that of the appellant, the same was rejected. Upholding such rejection, the apex Court held that the respondent No. 1 was himself to blame for late submission of documents. In Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (supra) also when there was non-compliance of conditions of NIT by submitting qualified documents, it was held that although the appellant had a valid and active ISO certification, which he did not submit along with the bid documents, may be due to inadvertence, however, whether such explanation was to be accepted or not lay within the discretionary powers of authority inviting bids. In that case, rejection of the bid of the appellant was held not perverse or arbitrary. 25. In Benjamin Lalrinawma (supra), this Court upholding the rejection of the particular tender on the ground of non-submission of authorization, distributorship/dealership certificate as per conditions of NIT, held that submission of such certificate was essential condition for a valid tender and that the authority rightly declared the said tender as invalid. In Mahananda Gogoi (supra) also this Court dealing with upholding the rejection of the petitioner's tender on the ground of non-submission of "No Debt Certificate ", although consequence of non-compliance was not mentioned in the NIT, held that there must be strict adherence to the conditions of the NTT. In Bikash Bora (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that non-fulfillment of conditions required for submission of valid tender was fatal to the tenders submitted by the appellant. In the said case, the appellant, although, was the highest bidder but did not submit the Loan Clearance Certificate and Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. It was argued that the said requirements were not essential but only ancillary. The Division Bench held that submission of such certificates was essential condition for valid tender and accordingly upheld the cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the appellant. 26. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from referring to the decision in Abu Tatib (supra) has also referred to the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1507/2006 (Annexure-2). 26. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from referring to the decision in Abu Tatib (supra) has also referred to the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1507/2006 (Annexure-2). By the said order it was held that failure to produce the certificate with regard to the status of the members of the petitioner's society and the neighbourhood thereof was not fatal. The said observation was made in reference to the NIT in which there was no requirement to submit the same. Unlike the present case in which the requirement of the certificate was specifically mentioned in the NIT. In the case of Abu Talib (supra), the test of "Curable Defect" was applied in respect of submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate at a later stage as the same did not cause any prejudice to the case of the petitioner, which is also not the case in hand. 27. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision and having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not submit the essential certificates, there was nothing wrong in not considering its tender on merit applying the sound discretion in the matter. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 during the course of hearing referring to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 also argued that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available by way of an appeal against the order of settlement Under Rule 11, against the orders of the settling authority passed under the rules, appeals would lie to the Assam Board of Revenue and the appeals must be preferred within 30 days of the date of such orders. However, having regard to the earlier round of litigation and since the matter has been adjudicated on its own merit, this aspect of the matter need not detain us. 29. The petitioner i.e. M/s. Khoraghat Society having failed to submit its bid along with the required documents, the settling authority was within its competence and jurisdiction to reject its tender. It may not be out of place to refer to the letter dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure-6), which the petitioner submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri (Fishery Branch). 29. The petitioner i.e. M/s. Khoraghat Society having failed to submit its bid along with the required documents, the settling authority was within its competence and jurisdiction to reject its tender. It may not be out of place to refer to the letter dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure-6), which the petitioner submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri (Fishery Branch). In the said letter, it was stated thus:- Sir, I have the honour to state that due to sheer mistake, I could not submit the following documents while submitting my tender for I No. Dhar Brahmaputra on 21.02.2010 in respect of 100% actual fishermen of my society and copy of up-to-date list of members of Societies. Those are submitted along with this petition which may kindly be accepted and thus oblige. Yours faithfully, Sd/-(Dulal Ch. Sarkar) 22.012010 Secretary, Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Cooperative Societies Ltd. Documents filed:- (1) Copy of order dated 18.12.1995 of Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Deptt. (2) Copy of order dated 20.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Secy to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Deptt. (3) Copy of Member list of Societies' member approved by the A.R. of Co-operative Societies, Dhubri on 19.7.1976. (4) Copy of Member list of Societies' member approved by the A.R.C.S. Dhubri on 21.52009. 30. From the above letter, what is seen is that as per the own admission of the petitioner, due to sheer mistake it could not submit the documents mentioned in the letter along with its tender documents. The plea now raised in the writ petition was not raised in the said letter. Thus, the fact of non-submission of the required documents along with tender is an admitted position and the submission thereof on a subsequent date i.e. 22.1.2010 at 4 pm after the last date i.e. 21.1.2010 (2 pm) and preparation of the comparative statement, was of no help to the case of the petitioner and also to argue that the said requirements are only ancillary and not essential conditions. 31. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition being WP(C) No. 297/2012 merits dismissal which I accordingly do. 32. In 2008(1) GLR 284, Sushila Devi & other vs. State of Tripura & other, it was held that non-submission of the Sale Tax Clearance Certificate along with the technical bid warranted rejection of the tender and accordingly such rejection was upheld. 32. In 2008(1) GLR 284, Sushila Devi & other vs. State of Tripura & other, it was held that non-submission of the Sale Tax Clearance Certificate along with the technical bid warranted rejection of the tender and accordingly such rejection was upheld. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Deputy Commissioner of the district i.e. Dhubri by his report dated 11.7.2011 had apprised the Govt. in the Fishery Department that M/s. Kachudola Society did not fulfill the requirement of all the members of the Society being 100% SC actual fishermen and engaged in the profession of fishing. By the said report, upon a detailed analysis, the respondent No. 7 was recommended for settlement of the fishery as it fulfilled all the required conditions of the NIT and also the criteria laid down in Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 2005 (as amended). It was upon a procedure adopted, the settling authority applying its sound discretion came to the findings that the respondent No. 7 is the most deserving one to get the settlement Such sound discretion applied by the settling authority, in my considered view, cannot be interfered with lightly. 33. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mondal vs. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, if the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, Courts will not interfere by exercising power of judicial review even if a procedural averration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. In BECIL vs. Arraycom India Ltd & other reported in (2010) 1 SCC 139 when it was notice that the respondent No. 1 was at fault for giving ambiguous proposal and the Government authority had taken reasonable and possible interpretation, it was held that the High Court should not be intervened in the matter as the scope of judicial review is limited in such matter. 34. This now leads us to other two writ petitions and the plea raised therein. As noted above, both the petitioners are not in the District of Dhubri. While M/s. Kachudola Society is in the district of Bongaigaon, M/s. Manash Society is in the district of Goalpara. 34. This now leads us to other two writ petitions and the plea raised therein. As noted above, both the petitioners are not in the District of Dhubri. While M/s. Kachudola Society is in the district of Bongaigaon, M/s. Manash Society is in the district of Goalpara. As per the tender condition No. 2, the Society offering bid will have to be of the same district i.e. Dhubri and within the neighbourhood of the fishery. Both the petitioners having not fulfilled this condition were not considered by the settling authority, as reflected in the impugned order of settlement 35. This aspect of the matter was dealt with in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No. 1566/2008. In Clause-2 of the NIT, it was stipulated that the tenderer must be of the district and in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The district is Dhubri. Such a condition having been laid down, it is only on fulfillment of the said condition, the other two petitioners namely, M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Manash Society would have been eligible to submit their tenders. While issuing direction for initiating fresh tender processing by the said order dated 31.7.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 1566/2008, it was categorically observed that the requirement of the said condition was overlooked by the settling authority while considering the tenders of the said two petitioners. In paragraph 22 of the judgment it was recorded that there was no findings recorded by the settling authority that the particular society fulfills the criteria of neighbourhood of "that district" as was envisaged in Clause 2 of the NIT. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment also noticing non fulfillment of the said condition, it was observed that the tenderer would not be entitled to consideration and that a tenderer from another district would not be entitled to be considered as eligible as per clause-2. This finding has attained finality in absence of any challenge to the same. 36. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment also noticing non fulfillment of the said condition, it was observed that the tenderer would not be entitled to consideration and that a tenderer from another district would not be entitled to be considered as eligible as per clause-2. This finding has attained finality in absence of any challenge to the same. 36. That apart, the petitioners having participated in the fresh tender process with the background of the said decision and the requirement of to be a resident of "that District" (Clause-2 of the NIT), they are now precluded from raising the plea that the said condition is opposed to the fishery rules and that they are also entitled to get consideration irrespective of the fact that their societies are situated in the district of Bongaigaon and Goalpara respectively. The plea of estoppel will stand on their way. The administrative control of the fishery being with the Deputy Commissioner of Dhubri district and the tender process having been initiated by the said authority with the clear stipulation that the societies will have to be resident of that district, the said condition cannot be ignored. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said condition, they ought to have challenged the same at the appropriate time. It will also have to be borne in mind that the said condition has also been discussed in the aforesaid order of this Court dated 31.7.2009 and referring to the said condition, it has been held that the societies which are not the resident of the said district, are not entitled to get consideration. This declaration having attained finality, can not be set at naught by this Court and that too in an alternative challenge made by the petitioners, who are also confronted with the principle of estoppel, they having participated in the tender process with their eyes wide open to the said conditions/requirement, to be of that District. 37. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in these two writ petitions and also accordingly they are also dismissed. All the writ petitions are answered in the above manner. The writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.