JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned State Counsel. 2. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta for settlement of the 4/66 Choulkhowa River Fishery. In the tender notice, it was specifically stated that the revenue for the first year of the Meen Mahal had been fixed at Rs.2,31,000/-. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioner and others had submitted their respective bids and upon evaluation of the bids, it was found that three of the bidders namely, Joydev Das, Gopal Sarkar and Narahari Das had submitted bids of Rs.1,15,55,555/-, Rs. 84,00,000/- and Rs. 81,00,000/- respectively. But the bids of the said three bidders have been rejected as it was found to be invalid. The present petitioner Ranglal Das was the fourth highest bidder having quoted a rate of Rs. 21,07,000/-. It is also relevant to take note of that after the tender notice of 18.12.2016, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta had written to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department providing the rates of the same fishery for the last three settlements. It had been stated that for the five years settlement from 01.05.2003 to 30.04.2008, the concerned fishery was settled with Rs. 92,612/- per year. In the subsequent settlement for seven years from 06.06.2008 to 05.06.2015, the fishery was settled at Rs. 1,17,243/- per year and for the period of six months from 06.06.2015 to 05.12.2015, the fishery was settled at Rs. 1,17, 243/- per year. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2016 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department, wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta was informed that there being a remarkable difference between the bids offered by the bidders, who had applied for the settlement of the No.4/66 Choulkhowa River Fishery, Barpeta district, it makes it difficult for the authorities to accept the bid offered by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to float a fresh Notice Inviting Tender. 4. Mr. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to float a fresh Notice Inviting Tender. 4. Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent authorities defended the said decision contained in the communication dated 09.12.2016 by contending that the authorities came to a conclusion that the fishery in question could have earned much higher revenue for the department and therefore, a conscious decision has been taken not to offer the petitioner the settlement in spite of he being the highest valid bidder amongst all the bidders. 5. As already noticed, the bids of the first three bidders have been rejected to be invalid and thereby the petitioner being the fourth bidder and whose bid was accepted as a valid bid, becomes a valid highest bidder in the bidding process. As the contention raised by Mr. D. Nath, learned State Counsel is regarding a subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the fishery could have fetched a higher value, the records were called for to verify as to what was the basis for the authorities to arrive at such a conclusion. Accordingly, the original records of the settlement had been produced before the Court. 6. As per the note given by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department, it had been stated that the petitioner being the fourth highest bidder had offered an amount of Rs. 21,07,000/- and his bid was found to be valid in all respect as he has submitted all the required documents. The note also provides that the highest bidder did not submit the Society Registration Certificate, the second highest bidder did not submit the Society Registration Certificate and the third highest bidder, who is an individual bidder cannot participate in the bidding process as the bid in question is confined to the Co-operative Societies. In other words, the note clearly indicates that the bids offered by the three highest bidders have been rejected to be invalid bids. Accordingly, the Secretary put up a note that the bids submitted by the petitioner be considered for settlement. 7. Against the said note of the Secretary, the Minister, Fisheries, Assam forms an opinion that as the difference between the first highest bidder, whose bid is invalid and the fourth highest bidder, whose bid is a valid bid is Rs.94,48 /- lakhs, therefore, there would be a huge loss of Government revenue. 7. Against the said note of the Secretary, the Minister, Fisheries, Assam forms an opinion that as the difference between the first highest bidder, whose bid is invalid and the fourth highest bidder, whose bid is a valid bid is Rs.94,48 /- lakhs, therefore, there would be a huge loss of Government revenue. Accordingly, the Minister directs the authorities to go for re-tender in the interest of Government Revenue. 8. From the aforesaid note-sheet, it is discernible that the respondent authorities had refused to accept the highest valid bid of the petitioner on the ground that the Minister of Fisheries had arrived at a conclusion that the difference between the bid value of the petitioner, otherwise being the fourth highest bidder and the highest invalid bidder is a huge difference. In other words, the Minister had formed the opinion that on making an inter-se comparison between the bids submitted by the petitioner and the bid submitted by the invalid highest bidder, a conclusion was arrived that there would be a loss of public revenue. In the aforesaid circumstance, a question for determination would be as to whether a bid offered by an invalid bidder can be made to be the basis to arrive at a conclusion that by offering the settlement to the available valid highest bidder, there would be a loss in public revenue. 9. Mr. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Jharkhand and others –vs- Cwe-Soma Consortium, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3366 , wherein in paragraph-13, a view was expressed that from the provisions of Clause 24 of the concerned NIT in the said case, the State authorities were within their rights to reject the bids without assigning any reason thereof. In paragraph-12, a view was taken that after a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. It is further provided that it is well settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. It is further provided that it is well settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. In paragraph-14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had concluded that in the case in hand, in view of lack of real competition, the State found it advisable not to proceed with the tender with only one responsive bid available before it. 10. From the provisions of the said judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is discernible that in the case involved therein, there was only one responsive valid bidder and therefore, the view taken and observation made therein, would have to be construed from the point of view that there was lack of adequate competition and secondly the authorities had a discretion not to enter into a contract with such bidder, whose bid value was found to be unacceptable. But, when the factual matrix of the present case is compared with that involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is noticed that in the present case, the petitioner was not the only valid bidder and in fact there was other bidders. In the present case, the petitioner was the highest valid bidder, where the three other bids were higher than him, but found to be invalid. So, the present case is not a case where there was a lack of competition between the bidders. 11. Be that as it may, the core question to be answered remains as to whether the bid value offered by a invalid bidder can be made to be the basis to arrive at a conclusion that more public revenue could have been earned from the bidding process. In a common understanding, a bid offered by a invalid bidder would be invalid in all respect including the rate that may be offered by such a bidder. If the bid offered is invalid, the same have to be construed to be a non-est in law and no information contained in such bid, including the rate that was offered, can be extracted out and made to be the basis for any conclusion. 12. If the bid offered is invalid, the same have to be construed to be a non-est in law and no information contained in such bid, including the rate that was offered, can be extracted out and made to be the basis for any conclusion. 12. Any situation permitting the authorities to do so i.e. extracting the rate offered by an invalid bidder to be used for the purpose to arrive at a conclusion that the rate of the otherwise highest valid bidder would not sub-serve the cause of earning revenue, would/may lead to a situation where such a rogue and invalid bidder can be allowed to participate in any tender process and depending upon the requirement of the tendering authorities, as to whether the highest valid tender is to be accepted or not, the rate offered by such rogue invalid bidder can be used by the authorities for justifying its decision. If the authorities are of the view that the highest valid tenderer is not desirable, the authorities would fall back upon the bid offered by the rogue invalid bidder and arrive at a conclusion that the highest valid bid does not sub-serve the requirement of public revenue and on the other hand if the highest bidder is otherwise to the liking of the tendering authorities, the same may not be used. 13. Such a situation would give an unfettered and unbridled power to the tendering authorities to either accept or reject any valid highest bidder and such procedure if allowed to be adopted, would be a violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the aforesaid context, when the records of the settling authorities is verified, it is noticed that the only reason for arriving at a conclusion that the fishery in question could have fetched a higher public revenue is that the invalid higher bids had indicated a much higher revenue that the fishery could have fetched. There is no other independent finding of the authorities or any other materials on record that the bid offered by the petitioner would fetch a public revenue, which would be less than what it could have otherwise fetched. 15. There is no other independent finding of the authorities or any other materials on record that the bid offered by the petitioner would fetch a public revenue, which would be less than what it could have otherwise fetched. 15. By further referring to the communication of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the revenue fetch by the concerned fishery for the last three settlements, a fair opinion can also be arrived at by the tendering authorities as to what would be the expected revenue from the fishery. When the said rate is compared with the rate offered by the petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner’s rate is in fact approximately two times higher than what the fishery had fetched during its last settlements. It is noticed that the Minister while arriving at its conclusion that the fishery could have fetched a higher revenue, have not taken the aforesaid piece of information which possibly could have been made available at the relevant point of time. 16. The said aspect of the matter also leads to a conclusion that while arriving at the conclusion that the fishery could have fetched a higher revenue, relevant consideration that were available or could have been made available were ignored whereas other irrelevant consideration, which does not meet the sanction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India were taken into consideration. Such a procedure adopted by the respondent authorities also warrants a conclusion that the decision of the Minister to go for a re-tendering on a purported conclusion that the fishery could have fetched a higher revenue is also not acceptable. 17. Accordingly, the decision of the Minister dated 24.11.2016 directing the authorities to go for a re-tender in the interest of Government revenue and also the communication contained in the letter dated 09.12.2016 are hereby set aside. 18. The respondent authorities now may proceed with the Notice Inviting Tender dated 18.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Barpeta by strictly following the provisions of law. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed.