JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) : 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Cooperation Department, appears for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appears for respondent No.9. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 cancelling the tender process initiated on the basis of Notice Inviting Tenders dated 01.08.2016 for settlement of Dibru Nadi Part-I Fishery for a period of seven years, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The Dibru Nadi Part-I Fishery is a 60% category fishery which is required to be settled on the basis a tender issued in terms of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. Accordingly, on 01.08.2016 the respondent authorities had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) for settlement of the said fishery. Responding to the NIT, as many as four tenderers including the writ petitioner herein had submitted their bids. After opening the bids and preparation of a comparative statement it was found that only the writ petitioner had submitted a technically valid bid and had therefore, emerged as the highest bidder. At that stage, the authorities had received complaints from several quarters forcing a rethink on the matter of awarding the settlement. After considering the issue in details, the respondent No.1 had issued the order dated 15.02.2017 cancelling the tender process. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Banik submits that there are three reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 justifying the order of cancellation of the tender process. However, a perusal of the said reasons, according to Mr. Banik, would go to show that those are not at all tenable in the eye of law. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Banik, the decision expressed through the order dated 15.02.2017 is completely arbitrary and illegal and hence, liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. A reading of the order dated 15.02.2017 goes to show that three reasons have been mentioned for cancellation of the tender notice. The operative part of the said order is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “ORDER Having perused all the records including the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 25-11-2016 the following observations are made : 1. The operative part of the said order is quoted herein below for ready reference :- “ORDER Having perused all the records including the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 25-11-2016 the following observations are made : 1. The comparative statement shows that only one bidder, Shri Anil Das has qualified. Thus, the bid, in effect, has become a single bid. 2. Further, on perusal of the note of the Auditor, of the lone qualified bidder, it was found that there were blank spaces not being filled up as regards the amount in hand of the Secretary, Committee’s Share of Profit etc. Thus, the papers of the lone bidder are also incomplete. 3. There were also complaints from several Meen Samabay Samittees/individuals that the NIT was not published widely. In view of the above, the present tendering process is hereby set aside and District Development Commissioner, Tinsukia is directed to immediately start fresh retendering process. In the interest of Government revenue till the fishery is settled with the new bidder, it will be run on daily basis for which all the papers including the terms and conditions will be sent to the Government immediately for approval. Sd/- (M.C.Jauhari) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department, Dated Dispur, the 15th February, 2017.” 6. The reasons indicated in the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 are self-explanatory and if found to be correct, in the opinion of this Court, would amount to just and sufficient reason for the authorities to go for a re-tender. By the own showing of the petitioner, no other bidders, excepting the writ petitioner, had submitted a valid tender. Therefore, it is a case of single tenderer for all practical purposes. The participation of only four bidders also goes to show that there was no proper publicity of the tender notice. 7. Law on this issue is well settled that a bidder does not have a vested right to be awarded with the settlement merely because of its participation in the tender process. Although a decision of this nature can be assailed on the grounds alleging malafide, yet, Mr. Banik has fairly submitted that malafide has not been alleged against the respondents in the present writ petition. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the writ petitioner has any right which can be enforced in the present writ petition. Although a decision of this nature can be assailed on the grounds alleging malafide, yet, Mr. Banik has fairly submitted that malafide has not been alleged against the respondents in the present writ petition. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the writ petitioner has any right which can be enforced in the present writ petition. It is for the respondent authorities to take a decision on the complaints received in respect of any tender process and in the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the respondent No.1 was justified in issuing the impugned order dated 15.02.2017. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.