JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner, a registered fishery cooperative society is aggrieved by the Annexure-8 order dated 21.5.2013, by which, the No. 162/163/164-Khandajan/Sidhali/Gatua Group Fishery of Morigaon district has been settled with the respondent No. 4 at its bid value of Rs. 6,51,300/- as against the petitioner's bid value of Rs. 6,61,000/-. The settlement is for a period of 7 years (2013-2020). The notice inviting tender for settlement of the fishery was issued on 26.3.2013. As indicated in the notice, the tenders were to be submitted on or before 8.4.2013 upto 2 PM. While indicating the terms and conditions of the settlement, inter alia, the following conditions were stipulated. 1. Settlement of 60% category fishery shall be made for a period of 7 years after selection on the basis of merit through tender in favour of Co-operative Societies/Self help Groups/NGO formed by fishermen. 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 Barack Valley. Tenderer has to be of that district and neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. 2. It was further stipulated that no tender would be accepted beyond the stipulated date and time and that a tenderer would require to submit the following certificates. (a) Fishing experience certificate. (b) Bakijai clearance certificate from the Deputy Commissioner. (c) Certificates of persons belonging to Schedules Castes/Maimal Community and certificate of actual fisherman. (d) Postal Order/bank cheque/bank draft of Rs. 10/- (e) Security money in the form of call deposit equal to 15% of the revenue fixed by the Government for the first year. (f) Registration Certificate of the cooperative society. (g) Photocopy of the Pan number of the Income Tax Department. (h) Photo of the person authorized to submit tender on behalf of the Society. (i) Copy of the Annual Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Statement of the Society, (emphasis added) 3. Admittedly the tender submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the neighborhood certificate and the PAN card, which were submitted at a later point of time i.e. on 15.5.2013, According to the petitioner, it had submitted along with its tender the copy of the application for PAN card dated 5.4.2013. Admittedly the tender submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the neighborhood certificate and the PAN card, which were submitted at a later point of time i.e. on 15.5.2013, According to the petitioner, it had submitted along with its tender the copy of the application for PAN card dated 5.4.2013. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the requirement of the NIT, although there was no need to furnish the neighborhood certificate, but the same was also submitted on 15.5.2013. The neighborhood certificate that was submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 15.5.2013 is of 13.5.2013 issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, Morigaon. 4. As stated in the writ petition, the tender papers were opened on 8.4.2013 and the Tender Committee examined the tender papers submitted by 6 participating tenderers and also prepared the comparative statement. As per the said statement, the petitioner is the 3rd highest bidder, while the respondent No. 4 is the 4th highest bidder. The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th highest bidders offered respective bid amounts of Rs. 9,55,525; Rs. 8,55,000/-; Rs. 5,55,000/- and Rs. 4,52,000/- respectively. As noted above, the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 as the 3rd and 4th highest bidders offered their bid amounts of Rs. 6,61,300/- and Rs. 6,51,000/- respectively. 5. On receipt of the related documents along with the comparative statement, the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department by its impugned order dated 21.5.2013 issued in the name of the Governor under the signature of the Secretary to the Fishery Department, settled the fishery with the respondent No. 4 while rejecting the tender of the petitioner along with the highest bidder, the 2nd highest bidder and the 5th highest bidder. Such rejection was on the ground of non-submission of neighborhood certificate and Tax clearance certificate/PAN card along with the tender. So far as the 5th highest bidder is concerned, his tender was not considered for non-submission of Tax clearance certificate/PAN card. So far as the other bidders are concerned excluding the petitioner, although their bids were found to be complete in all respect, but their bid amounts being lower than that of the respondent No. 4, whose tender was also found to be valid in all respect, were not settled with the fishery. 6. So far as the other bidders are concerned excluding the petitioner, although their bids were found to be complete in all respect, but their bid amounts being lower than that of the respondent No. 4, whose tender was also found to be valid in all respect, were not settled with the fishery. 6. According to the petitioner, it having applied for the PAN card and as a proof thereof having submitted the copy of the application made to the authority along with the tender document, non-submission of the PAN card along with the tender ought not to have resulted in rejection of their tender. As regards the neighborhood certificate, it is the plea of the petitioner that the same being not a required condition as per the stipulation made in the NIT, non-submission of the same also could not have resulted in rejection of its tender. Finally it is the plea of the petitioner that it having offered bid value of Rs. 6,61,000/- as against bid value of Rs. 6,51,300/- offered by the respondent No. 4, the fishery ought to have been settled with it instead of settling the same with the respondent No. 4. 7. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the two decisions of this Court enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-9 and 11 submitted that the requirement of submitting PAN card and neighborhood certificate being only ancillary or subsidiary requirement ought not to have been rigidly followed by the authority. He also submitted that there being no requirement of submitting neighborhood certificate, as per the stipulation made in the NIT, non-submission of the same along with the tender documents could not have authorized the authority to reject the tender of the petitioner. Another submission made by him is that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner could have easily ascertained the fact instead of rejecting the tender on that ground. He further submitted that both the requirements even if construed to be mandatory having been fulfilled by submitting the necessary certificates, although after the last date of submission of tenders on 15.5.2013, the authority ought to have considered the same instead of rejecting the tender by the impugned order dated 21.5.2013. 8. The decisions, on which Mr. He further submitted that both the requirements even if construed to be mandatory having been fulfilled by submitting the necessary certificates, although after the last date of submission of tenders on 15.5.2013, the authority ought to have considered the same instead of rejecting the tender by the impugned order dated 21.5.2013. 8. The decisions, on which Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to during the course of hearing of the writ petition are dated 22.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1507/2006 and 29.9.2011 passed in W.A. No. 294/2011 (Annexure-9 and 11 respectively). 9. Countering the above argument, both Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4 submitted that the basic criterion for settlement of the fishery being, tenderer must be of the concerned district and in the neighborhood of the fishery, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to submit the neighborhood certificate along with the tender documents. They also submitted that the requirement of submission of PAN card being one of the conditions stipulated in the NIT and the petitioner having failed to fulfill the said requirement within the stipulated date, there was nothing wrong on the part of the authority to reject the tender of the petitioner on those counts. 10. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that as per Clause 2 of the NIT quoted above, irrespective of non-mentioning of the requirement of submitting the neighborhood certificate along with other certificates, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to testify the same through a certificate. Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State Counsel also submitted in the same line while referring to the para-wise comments and the records produced by him during the course of hearing of the writ petition. 11. In the decision dated 22.11.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1507/2006 by this Court, one of the grounds for rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner was that of non-submission of the neighborhood certificate, although, there was no mention of the same in the list of documents required to be submitted along with the tender. In that case, the petitioner society had been operating the fishery for the last several years and had also quoted much higher rate than that of the party with whom the fishery was settled. In that case, the petitioner society had been operating the fishery for the last several years and had also quoted much higher rate than that of the party with whom the fishery was settled. Thus it was known to the authority that the petitioner was in the neighborhood of the fishery. Recording the concession granted by the learned counsels for the parties, the Court remanded the matter back to the Government for a fresh decision notwithstanding the rejection of the petitioner's tender on the ground of its failure to produce the certificate including the neighborhood certificate as the same was not mentioned in the list of documents to be submitted along with the tender. 12. In the decision dated 29.9.2011 passed in W.A. No. 294/2011, the Division Bench of this Court held that submission of the Bakijai clearance certificate along with the tender was not a rigid requirement. While setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, by which the award of contract in favour of the appellant was set aside and quashed, it was observed that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of an administrator in giving a contract unless there is illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity as laid down by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 . It has further been observed thus:- If after taking into account all relevant considerations a decision has been taken to award contract, the Court has to be slow in interfering with the decision. In the present case, there was no compelling need for interference in absence of any illegality, mala-fides or loss of public revenue. 13. In the instant case, there is a difference of Rs. 10,000/- only in respect of the bid value offered by the respondent No. 4 vis-a-vis the petitioner. It is not a case of any wide variation in respect of bid amounts so as to be contend that any huge loss has been caused to public revenue. This aspect of the matter will also have to be viewed keeping in mind the fact that the two certificates referred to above were submitted by the petitioner much after the last date of submission of tenders. This aspect of the matter will also have to be viewed keeping in mind the fact that the two certificates referred to above were submitted by the petitioner much after the last date of submission of tenders. As noted above, the last date of submission of tender was 8.4.2013 (2 PM) and the petitioner submitted the two documents i.e. PAN card and the neighborhood certificate only on 15.5.2013, by which time comparative statement was prepared, the file was processed and eventually the impugned order of settlement was passed on 21.5.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the neighborhood certificate on 13.05.2013, much after the bids were opened, comparative statement was prepared and the file was sent to the Government on 04.05.2013. The petitioner prima-facie lacking in basic eligibility on the last date of submission of tenders, realizing the same, applied for the certificate and submitted the same after more than one month of last date of submission of tender. As regards the plea that the Deputy Commissioner could have ascertained the position, suffice is to say that unless the basis is provided the Deputy Commissioner was not obliged to do so. 14. The two decisions referred to above do not lay down any ratio as such for its universal application. The said two decisions had been rendered in the back ground of the facts involved in the respective cases. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the back ground of the fact of that case. As has been stated long time ago that a case is only an authority for what had actually decides and not what logically follows from it (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn Vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495). 15. I have gone through the entire materials on record including the file in which the decision towards passing the impugned order was taken. In the decision making process, every details of the tenders submitted by the tenderers have been discussed including the fact of non-submission of PAN card and neighborhood certificate not only by the petitioner, but also by the 1st, 2nd and the 5th highest bidders. The fact that in the meantime, the petitioner had submitted PAN card and neighborhood certificate has also been discussed. It has also been discussed that the respondent No. 4 has submitted all the required documents including the neighborhood certificate and the PAN card. The fact that in the meantime, the petitioner had submitted PAN card and neighborhood certificate has also been discussed. It has also been discussed that the respondent No. 4 has submitted all the required documents including the neighborhood certificate and the PAN card. It was only thereafter the proposal was made for settlement of the fishery with the valid highest bidder i.e. the respondent No. 4 and the departmental Minister approved the same. 16. From the above, it cannot be said to be a case of non-consideration of the case of the petitioner and others and consideration of the case of the respondent No. 4 with a predetermined mind or extending any favour to it. As has been held by the Apex Court in Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive, since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. That apart, even a highest bidder cannot claim as a matter of right that the settling authority is bound to make settlement in its favour and no other consideration can weigh the mind of the settling authority. 17. It is true that in the NIT, while stipulating submission of the required certificates along with the tender, there was no indication for the neighborhood certificate, but Clause-2 of the NIT itself having emphasized that the tenderer is to be of that district and in the neighborhood of the fishery, there ought to have been indication of the same by supporting document in the tender submitted by the petitioner. The photocopy of the PAN card was also insisted upon as a proof of Tax clearance etc., but the petitioner could submit the same after expiry of more than one month. In the meantime, tenders were opened, comparative statement was prepared and the file was processed at different levels. The photocopy of the PAN card was also insisted upon as a proof of Tax clearance etc., but the petitioner could submit the same after expiry of more than one month. In the meantime, tenders were opened, comparative statement was prepared and the file was processed at different levels. If the claim of the petitioner that there was no requirement to submit neighborhood certificate and that submission of the PAN card was only an ancillary or subsidiary requirement, then in that case, the tenders submitted by other tenderers will also have to be considered whose bids were higher than that of the petitioner, but their tenders were rejected on the same ground i.e. non-submission of PAN card and neighborhood certificate. In the decision making process, there was no infirmity in considering the tenders submitted by 6 tenderers. 18. In Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works reported in AIR 1991 SC 1579 , the Apex Court classifying the requirement of tender notice into nonessential 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. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 , 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. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 , 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 could 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. 19. 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. 19. In Ram Gajadhar Nishad Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 486 , 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 Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 9 , 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. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 5 SCC 103 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. 20. In Benjamin Lalrinawma Vs. State of Mizoram reported in 2005 (3) GLT 580, 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 Vs. State of Mizoram reported in 2005 (3) GLT 580, 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 Vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (3) GLT 144 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 NIT. In Bikash Bora Vs. State of Assam reported in 2003 (2) GLT 485, 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. 21. 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 aberration 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. & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 139 when it was notice that the respondent No. 1 was at fault for giving ambiguous proposal and the Govt. 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. 22. Non-submission of the required certificates along with the tender document may result in rejection of tenders and the same cannot be faulted with. 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. 22. Non-submission of the required certificates along with the tender document may result in rejection of tenders and the same cannot be faulted with. Moreover, when the authority rejected the tenders of 1st, 2nd and 3rd highest bidders on the same ground, irrespective of the argument advanced it cannot be said that the authority taking the decision acted in mala-fide exercise of power. In such a situation, this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must bear in mind that interference by this Court is restricted in the matter of awarding of contract and the petitioner with the variation of Rs. 10,000/- only cannot claim any fundamental right to get the settlement of the fishery in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 23. During the course of hearing, Mr. M. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondent No. 4 having not submitted upto date balance sheet, its tender ought to have been rejected. Apart from the fact that there is no such specifically pleaded case of the petitioner, on perusal of the records, it is found that the respondent No. 4, alongwith its tender submitted Bakijai clearance certificate dated 14.03.2012. Audit Report prepared by the Senior Auditor of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon clearly indicates that the respondent No. 4 did not have any business as it was not settled with any fishery during the relevant years and thus a stalemate was created. On the other hand in the Audit report of the petitioner there is mention of irregularities committed by it in not submitting the upto date accounts book and submitting the upto date pass book. If there was any irregularity in the Audit Report, it cannot be an one sided affair and the petitioner will also equally has to take the brunt. Thus this ground, not specifically pleaded in the writ petition and seriously argued is also not sustainable. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.