JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. A registered 60% category Fishery in Dhubri district, called Gr. No. 7/93 Raidak Fishery, was settled with the respondent No. 6 vide Settlement Order dated 22.11.2016 for a period of 7 years. This order was put to challenge by the appellant as the writ petitioner in the related WP(C) No. 7198/2016. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.6.2017, prompting filing of the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, advocate. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned additional senior Government advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6. Mr. Dhar has also produced the office records in original for our perusal. 3. Challenge made to the order of settlement dated 22.11.2016 is basically on two grounds, namely, non-compliance of the conditions under clauses (j) and (k) of clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 17.12.2015 which clearly disentitled the respondent No. 6 to get the benefit of settlement. The list of documents as mentioned under clause 4 was required to be submitted along with the Tender. Sub-clause (j) pertains to furnishing document listing out the names, addresses and age of the Members of the Society and sub-clause (k) pertains to the requirement of certificate showing the distance/area of the society from the concerned Meen Mahal. 4. With regard to sub-clause (j) above, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that a representation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 15.9.2016 giving out the details of some members of the respondent No. 6-Society involved in other vocations and members who have since died. In respect of sub-clause (k) above, it is the case of the appellant that the neighbourhood/distance certificate dated 14.1.2016, which was submitted by the respondent No. 6 as part of the tender papers only mentions the distance of two villages out of the total 7 villages which comprises the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 society. It is stated that in respect of the distance/neighbourhood certificate of the remaining five villages, the same was applied for on 3.12.2016 and granted on 12.12.2016. It is stated that in respect of the distance/neighbourhood certificate of the remaining five villages, the same was applied for on 3.12.2016 and granted on 12.12.2016. It is contended that the last date for submitting tender being 18.1.2016, apparently, the respondent No. 6 did not submit the required neighbourhood/distance certificate in respect of the five villages within due time. In fact, the same was submitted well after issuance of the impugned order of settlement dated 22.11.2016. Submission made is that sub-clause (k) of clause 4 being an essential requirement of the tender process and the same not having been complied with by the respondent No. 6, no settlement could have been granted in favour of the respondent No. 6. Taking it further, it is contended that a mere perusal of the impugned order of settlement dated 22.11.2016 would go to show the undue benefit was given to respondent No. 6, in that, the bids of the second, third and fifth highest bidders were rejected as neighbourhood certificate, amongst others, was not submitted. This aspect, according to the appellant, clearly demonstrated that neighbourhood certificate is an essential requirement without which a bid would invite rejection. Analogy is drawn that as in the case of the second, third and fifth highest bidders, the respondent No. 6, although having quoted the highest bid, did not submit distance/neighbourhood certificate in respect of five villages out of the seven villages under its area of operation and, therefore, its bid invited rejection. Further submission is that the observation made in the impugned order of settlement that the respondent No. 6 had submitted all documents required for settlement of the fishery is, out and out, an incorrect statement not borne out of records. Referring to the said order it is also submitted that the tender of the appellant was rejected only on the ground that the bid offered was low although it had submitted all important documents. 5. On the issue of the respondent No. 6 not having submitted a proper neighbourhood/distance certificate as well as of having failed to submit a certificate of 100% actual fishermen with updated list of members, the appellant had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 15.9.2016. Pursuant thereto and on instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, an enquiry was conducted and Report submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. Pursuant thereto and on instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, an enquiry was conducted and Report submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. The said Report, inter alia, mentioned that the respondent No. 6-Society comprises of 100% actual fishermen, residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question, although located a little distance away as compared to the distance where the appellant's Society is located. This Report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri formed part of the records before issuance of the order of settlement dated 22.11.2016 and, therefore, assumes great significance. 6. Indeed, the neighbourhood/distance certificate submitted by the respondent No. 6 along with its tender covered two villages. Undisputedly, the neighbourhood/distance certificate in respect of the remaining five villages was not brought on record prior to issuance of the order of settlement. However, it must be borne in mind that the settling authority recorded that the respondent No. 6-Society is located in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question, as could be gathered from the Report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, which was prior to issuance of the order of settlement. There was material available with the settling authorities to reach a satisfaction on the issue of distance/neighbourhood in favour of the respondent No. 6 for the purpose of granting settlement to it. 7. Turning to the order of settlement dated 22.11.2016, the bids offered by the five tenderers, including the appellant and the respondent No. 6, were as follows: Name of the tenderer Offered bid value for 7 years. 1. M/s. Gangadhar F.C.S. Ltd. (respondent No. 6) Rs. 7,77,000 2. M/s. Gadhadhar Meen S.S. Ltd. Rs. 7,00,000 3. M/s. Sareswar M.S.S. Ltd. Rs. 5,60,007 4. M/s. Raidak Burar Chora F.C.S. Ltd. (appellant) Rs. 4,64,107 5. Dharnad Brahmaputra F.C.S. Ltd. Rs. 4,48,007 The bids of the second, third and fifth highest tenderers were rejected on ground of not having submitted important documents, including the neighbourhood certificates. A perusal of the records showed that the said second, third and fifth highest tenderers did not submit neighbourhood certificate at all, which is not the case in respect of the respondent No. 6. Apparently, the respondent No. 6 submitted neighbourhood/distance certificate dated 14.1.2016 along with its tender, which made mention of two villages out of the seven villages under its area of operation. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 6 did not submit any neighbourhood certificate at all. Apparently, the respondent No. 6 submitted neighbourhood/distance certificate dated 14.1.2016 along with its tender, which made mention of two villages out of the seven villages under its area of operation. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 6 did not submit any neighbourhood certificate at all. The lacunae, if any, was made good by the Report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, which formed part of the records prior to issuance of the order of settlement. In this respect, the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the respondent-authorities have taken contrary stands by treating and rejecting one group of tenderers for not having submitted neighbourhood certificate while ignoring the same in granting settlement to the respondent No. 6, does not hold water. As stated above, the respondent No. 6 submitted neighbourhood/distance certificate at least in respect of two villages and there is also the Report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri supporting the fact that the Society of respondent No. 6 comprises of 100% actual fishermen and is located in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question. There can be no second opinion on this. 8. There is no gain-saying that settlement of fisheries must conform and fulfil the object of the Fishery Rules. In doing so, it is incumbent upon the respondent settling authority to make such enquiries in order to reach a satisfaction that not only the most deserving group is given the settlement but also to ensure that the interest of government revenue is adequately protected. In the present case, save a technical shortcoming that neighbourhood/distance certificate in respect of the five villages did not accompany the tender form, the appellant does not dispute the fact that the respondent No. 6-Society is located in the neighbourhood of Gr. 7/93 Raidak Fishery. It is a fact that the respondent No. 6 offered a much higher bid than the appellant, which enures to the interest of the government revenue. Therefore, judged from whichever angle, the respondent No. 6-Society was clearly the most deserving tenderer for being conferred with the order of settlement. 9. Having regard to the discussions and findings above, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The present writ appeal, being devoid of merits, stands accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.