JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This order will dispose of both Writ Appeal Nos. 309 and 383 of 2013. 2. We have heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 in both the appeals. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the official respondents. 3. Challenge made in both the appeals is to the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the two writ petitions filed by the two appellants and upholding the order of settlement made by the State in favour of respondent No. 5. 4. Be it stated that M/s Dhubri Bazar Mach Becha Kina Samabai Samity Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 1) had filed WP (C) No. 1293/2013 challenging the legality and validity of the settlement order dated 22.02.2013 granted in favour of respondent No. 5. Likewise M/S Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) had filed WP (C) No. 986/2013 against the said order of settlement dated 22.02.2013. As stated above, both the writ petitions were dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 09.09.2013 leading to filing of the two appeals which were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Matter relates to settlement of Group No. 1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Pt-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery of Dhubri district (hereinafter referred to as fishery). 6. Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri had issued notice inviting tender (NIT) on 27.04.2012 (30.04.2012) for settlement of the fishery for 7 years. As per the NIT, the base value of the fishery was fixed at Rs. 4,05,000.00/-. It was mentioned that the fishery was a 60% category fishery and would be settled for 7 years with co-operative societies/self help groups/non-government organizations comprising of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community or to the Maimal community of Barak valley. It was specifically mentioned that the tenderer should be from the district of Dhubri and in the neighborhood of the fishery. It was specifically mentioned that the tenderer should be from the district of Dhubri and in the neighborhood of the fishery. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, a number of documents were required to be submitted by the respective tenderers along with the tender papers which included fishing experience certificate, caste certificate, certificate of actual fishermen, certificate of neighbourhood, etc. 7. It appears that the two appellants along with respondent No. 5 and other parties had submitted their tenders competing for settlement of the fishery for the period under consideration. 8. Tenders were opened on 29.05.2012 in the presence of the representatives of the parties. As per the comparative statement prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, the bid value offered by appellant No. 1 was 91,00,000.00/- and it was the 2nd highest. The bid value offered by appellant No. 2 Rs. 76,65,000.00/- was the 3rd highest while the bid value offered by respondent No. 5, Rs. 60,04,250.00/-, was the 7th highest bid. Be it stated that the aforesaid bid amounts covered the entire period of 7 years. 9. After the comparative statement was prepared, enquiry was conducted by the office of the Deputy Commissioner regarding eligibility of the respective tenderers vis-a-vis terms and conditions of the NIT. Enquiry report dated 03.09.2012 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri whereas, enquiry report dated 17.09.2012 was submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dhubri to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. 10. Based on the aforesaid enquiry reports, Deputy Commissioner submitted report dated 25.01.2013 to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department. Deputy Commissioner in his report stated that while M/S Raidak Burarchora Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd had offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,09,86,500.00/-, the society was not found within the neighborhood of the fishery and did not fulfill the criteria of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, as amended in the year 2005. Acknowledging that appellant No. 1 had offered the 2nd highest bid of Rs. 91,00,000.00/-, it was however, observed that members of the society were engaged in fish selling business and the society did not comprise of 100% actual fishermen. Regarding appellant No. 2, it was stated that it had offered the 3rd highest bid of Rs. 76,65,000.00/-. Acknowledging that appellant No. 1 had offered the 2nd highest bid of Rs. 91,00,000.00/-, it was however, observed that members of the society were engaged in fish selling business and the society did not comprise of 100% actual fishermen. Regarding appellant No. 2, it was stated that it had offered the 3rd highest bid of Rs. 76,65,000.00/-. It was, however, mentioned that the said society was not in the neighborhood of the fishery as two villages, i.e., Khoraghat and Gulihara were situated at about 10 to 12 kms away from the fishery. Regarding respondent No. 5, it was mentioned that the bid amount offered by it, i.e., Rs. 60,04,250.00 was the 7th highest bid, which however fulfilled all the conditions of the NIT. The society comprised of 5 villages which were located within 300 metres to 4 kms from the fishery, thus fulfilling the neighborhood criteria and that all the members of the society were 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. Bid amounts of the other bidders were also discussed. 11. Thereafter, the settlement order dated 22.02.2013 was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department settling the fishery with respondent No. 5 as per its bid value of Rs. 60,04,250.00 for a period of 7 years w.e.f. from the date of delivery of possession of the fishery. 12. This led to filing of the two related writ petitions, which as noticed above, were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the common judgment and order dated 09.09.2013. 13. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant No. 2 submitted that 'neighborhood' is a relative concept and cannot be measured in terms of inches and centimeters. Area of operation of appellant No. 2 comprised of 14 villages out of which only two villages, namely, Khoraghat and Gulihara were found to be at a distance of 10 to 12 kms from the fishery. If the average of all the villages were taken by the settling authority a more reasonable picture would have emerged which would have shown that his client was more or less in the neighborhood of the fishery. Coupled with the fact that appellant No. 2 had offered a much higher bid than respondent No. 5, appellant No. 2 ought to have been preferred over respondent No. 5. Coupled with the fact that appellant No. 2 had offered a much higher bid than respondent No. 5, appellant No. 2 ought to have been preferred over respondent No. 5. This aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the settling authority. Failure to consider this relevant aspect had vitiated the decision making process. In the process, public interest was also overlooked inasmuch as respondent No. 5 was settled with the fishery at a much lower bid. 14. Supporting the submission of Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for appellant No. 1 submitted that it is nowhere mandated that a person engaged in petty fish trading cannot also be an actual fisherman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. Though the members of appellant No. 1 are engaged in fish selling as a means of livelihood, they are also actual fishermen of the Scheduled Caste community and this alternative means of livelihood had to be resorted to for survival in the absence of any settlement in favour of the society. This aspect of the matter was overlooked by the learned Single Judge, he submits. 15. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that the settling authority had only followed the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner which was clearly in favour of respondent No. 5. Report of the Deputy Commissioner was on the basis of field enquiry. This report of the Deputy Commissioner has not been challenged till date by either of the appellants. Therefore, it is not open to the appellants to independently challenge the finding recorded by the settling authority. 16. On a query of the Court as to whether it was proper for the Deputy Commissioner to conduct enquiry after preparation of the comparative statement, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that such enquiry was made on the basis of Government instruction contained in the letter dated 19.09.2008. Referring to Clauses 2 and 3 of the said letter dated 19.09.2008 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department and addressed to the Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers (Civil), he submits that the said two authorities were required to cause enquiry to come to a definite conclusion regarding the neighborhood issue which is one of the primary consideration while making settlement of fishery. The Deputy Commissioners were also required to conduct enquiry as to whether all the members of the competing tenderers of the three categories comprised of 100% actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Caste or not. He submitted that learned Single Judge had gone into all these aspects of the matter and thereafter, had passed a reasoned order upholding the order of settlement which does not call for any interference. 17. Another query was put to Mr. Choudhury as to whether it was justified on the part of the settling authority to have settled the fishery with respondent No. 5 at its bid value though admittedly bid value offered by respondent No. 5 was the 7th highest thereby impacting public revenue. Answering this query, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel fairly submitted that this aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the settling authority at the time of settlement. However, that not having been done it would be too late now to call upon respondent No. 5 to raise the bid value higher than what it had initially offered. This can certainly be made applicable in future settlement. 18. Mr. Chutia, learned Government Advocate supported the order of settlement and the order of the learned Single Judge. 19. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 20. In this appeal we are primarily called upon to examine the correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge in deciding the two writ petitions filed by the appellants. At this stage, we may note that in Management of Narendra & Company v. Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , Supreme Court has held that in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, Appellate Bench should not disturb the same unless a conclusion is reached that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse. Merely because another view is possible, there should be no interference with the order of the Single Bench, unless both the parties to the appeal agree otherwise. 21. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that question of neighbourhood and question of membership of the competing bidders, be it, co-operative societies or non-government organisations or local self help groups, requires determination of facts. We find that in terms of the Govt. 21. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that question of neighbourhood and question of membership of the competing bidders, be it, co-operative societies or non-government organisations or local self help groups, requires determination of facts. We find that in terms of the Govt. instruction issued way back in the year 2008(19.09.2008), which is on record, Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri had instructed two of the field level authorities, namely, Circle Officer, Dhubri Revenue Circle and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dhubri to conduct fact finding enquiry regarding the aforesaid two aspects. Based on their enquiry reports, Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri had submitted his comparative statement along with his report to the Government on 25.01.2013. It was on the basis of the above report of the Deputy Commissioner that the order of settlement was made. Relevant portion of the order of settlement dated 22.02.2013 is extracted hereunder :- "Examined carefully the documents for settlement of the Fishery and it is found that 9 (nine) Nos. of tenders participated in the tender process in favour of their Society. The status of the tender are given below :- M/s Raidak Burachara FCS Ltd., Kherbari has offered the highest bid value of Rs. 1,09,86,500/- for 7 (seven) years. But it appears from the report of CO, Agomoni that though the Society is consist of actual fishermen, but they are not in the neighbourhood. The members of the Society remains at a distance of 30 to 40 KM. Since, neighbourhood is one of the important criteria for settlement of a fishery this tenderer Society is not to be considered. M/s Dhubri Bazar Mach Becha Kina SS Ltd, Dhubri has offered the 2nd highest bid value of Rs. 91,00,000/- for 7 (seven) years. As per the certificate issued by DFDO, Dhubri the members of the Society are being shown as fishermen community and of SC caste. But the main occupation is being stated as to purchase & selling of fishes. Further, as per report of CO, Dhubri it reflects that the members of the society are directly engaged is fish selling business and the main occupation & livelihood of the members of the Society is to sell and purchase of fishes. The list of members reflects the same. D.C., Dhubri also stated that it is evident that the members of the Society are not 100% actual fishermen and not engaged in the profession of fishing. The list of members reflects the same. D.C., Dhubri also stated that it is evident that the members of the Society are not 100% actual fishermen and not engaged in the profession of fishing. DC also said that the Society does not fulfil the criteria of Rule 12 of Assam Fishery Rule, 1953 (as amended, 2005) as well as the tender condition of the NIT. Though they are in the neighbourhood of the fishery but from the above reports of CO, Dhubri and DC it seems that the Society is basically involve in trading of fishes and hence they are not to be considered for settlement. M/S Khoraghat Gulichara FCS Ltd has offered the 3rd highest bid value of Rs. 76,65,000/- for 7 (seven) years. But, CO, Bogribari has reported that they are not in the neighbourhood (10-12 KM distance) and the Society do not belong to tender invited district DC also stated that the Society has violated the tender conditions as stipulated in terms of Clause II of NIT. Thus, the Society is not eligible to get settlement. The 4th Highest bidder M/S Geramari Gaon Panchayat SS Ltd. has offered the bid value of Rs. 70,35,000/- for 7 (seven) years, but the Society has not submitted the fishing experience certificate & neighbourhood certificate. In the letter of DC, also stated the 4th highest bidder as invalid. Since important documents have not been incorporated along with the tender papers the Society is not to be considered for settlement. M/s Dharnad Brahmaputra Pt-I & Satakuri Nadi FCS Ltd. has offered the 5th highest bid value of Rs. 66,57,777/- for 7 years. CO, Dhubri and DC, Dhubri have stated that the Society has incorporated some members of 9 number of other villages which are outside of their registered villages and out of which 4 Nos. of villages presently is the registered village of other tenderer Society. Further, the Society is defaulter in Govt. Revenue as per DC's report. Hence, they are not eligible for settlement. M/s Bogribari Arai Ani FCS Ltd. has offered 6th highest bid value of Rs. 64,82,049/- for 7 years. On enquiry CO, Bogribari reported they are at a distance from 5 to 7 KM from the fishery and the members of the Society resides in other district and thus it violates the conditions of NIT. They are not to be considered for settlement. 64,82,049/- for 7 years. On enquiry CO, Bogribari reported they are at a distance from 5 to 7 KM from the fishery and the members of the Society resides in other district and thus it violates the conditions of NIT. They are not to be considered for settlement. M/s Gauripur Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd has offered the 7th highest bid value of Rs. 60,04,250/- for 7 (seven) years. The Society is in the area of operation i.e. within 300 meters to 4.00 KM from the fishery and consists of 100% SC fishermen. DC has recommended settlement in favour of the Society. M/s Dharnad Brahmaputra FCS Ltd has offered the 8th highest bid value of Rs. 58,76,500/- for 7 (seven) years. They are in the area of operation and located within 50 mtrs to 2.00 KM from the fishery and the members are 100% actual fishermen. DC also recommended their Society next to the 7th highest bidder. Lastly, M/s Sareswar Meen SS Ltd. has offered the lowest bid value of Rs. 56,21,000/- for 7 (seven) years, but the Society is not within the neighbourhood (7 to 14 KM). Since they are the lowest bidder and as per DC's report they are not in the neighbourhood, they are not to be considered for settlement. Reflecting the above and examining all the criteria for settlement, it is found that the 7th highest bidder i.e., M/s Gauripur Cooperative Fishery Society Ltd. has fulfilled all the criteria and conditions for settlement of this fishery. Though the eight highest bidder also fulfilled the criteria and other condition for settlement but considering the more bid value than the eight highest bidder settlement of the Fishery in question may be offered to the 7th highest bidder i.e. M/s Gauripur Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the Governor of Assam in exercise of the power conferred under Rule -12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (as amended 2005') is pleased to settle the Gr. No. 1/87-Dharnad Brahmaputra Pt-I & Satakuri Nadi Fishery of Dhubri district with M/s Gauripur Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd for 7 (seven) years as per their bid value of Rs. 60,04,250/- for 7 (seven) years w.e.f. the date of delivery of the possession of the fishery, subject to observance of all necessary formalities as per norms/rules as laid down in Govt. order No. FISH.2/2005/172 dated 21/05/2005." 22. 60,04,250/- for 7 (seven) years w.e.f. the date of delivery of the possession of the fishery, subject to observance of all necessary formalities as per norms/rules as laid down in Govt. order No. FISH.2/2005/172 dated 21/05/2005." 22. Thus, bid of appellant No. 1 was rejected on the ground that its members are engaged in the business of buying and selling fish i.e., trading in fish; in other words they are not actual fisherman. On the other hand, bid of appellant No. 2 was rejected on the ground that it is not in the neighbourhood of the fishery and also not in the tender inviting district i.e., Dhubri. 23. Learned Single Judge examined the challenge made to the order of settlement. In respect of appellant No. 1 it was held as under : - "13. In the instant case, the tender submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 3 grounds, which have been noted above. Apart from being not in the neighborhood relatable to the term "neighborhood" finds mention in the Rules as has been recorded in the impugned order, it also does not belong to the tender inviting district i.e. Dhubri. The Deputy Commissioner of the District has also reported that it violates Clause 2 of the NIT requiring the tenderer to be a Cooperative Society/Self Help Group/NGO comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the SC community and that it will also have to be of that district and the neighborhood of the fishery. 14. In the judgment reported in 2009 (4) GLT 909 (Manash Padmabari Jiniram Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. State of Assam), it has been held by this Court that the objective of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules is to take care of requirement of livelihood of fishermen in the neighborhood of the fishery. It has been also held in the judgment and order dated 21.3.2013 passed in WP (C) No. 297/2012 (Khoraghat Guliara Fishery Co-operative Society v. State of Assam), that the party seeking settlement in respect of a fishery will have to be of the jurisdictional district. In the instant case, admittedly some of the villages over which petitioner society operates fall within the BTAD area in the district of Kokrajhar. In the instant case, admittedly some of the villages over which petitioner society operates fall within the BTAD area in the district of Kokrajhar. As per the report dated 10.12.2012 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, the petitioner society although comprised of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the SC Community but few of them are engaged in other works and that, two of its Revenue villages fall under BTAD area in the district of Kokrajhar. 15. As per the Fishery Rules, for the purpose of settlement of 60% Government running fishery by tender system, one of the main requirements and criteria is that the settlement is to be made to the society comprising of 100% actual fishermen of SC Community engaged in fishing only and residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery. For effective implementation of the said condition, one of the conditions specified in the NIT is that the tenderer society must be from the same district from which tender is floated. As stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department vide circulars dated 19.08.2008 and 29.11.2010 requested the authority to enquire the distance of the tenderer society from the fishery. In the instant case, after opening of the tenders, the authority made the enquiry as to the neighborhood issue on the basis of the certificates submitted by the tenderers. If upon making the said enquiry, it was reported that the petitioner society was not within the neighborhood of the fishery compared to other tenderers, no fault can be attributed in passing the impugned order. If the concept relating to neighborhood for the purpose of settlement of a fishery is not adhered to, the particular prescription of the Rule and its object would get frustrated. In the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.01.2013, it has been stated thus: "M/S Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-op: Society Ltd, Khoraghat, offered the 3rd highest rate of Rs. 76, 65, 000.00 for 7 years. It is seen from the enquiry report submitted by Circle officer, Bogribari Revenue Circle vide letter No. BBC. In the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.01.2013, it has been stated thus: "M/S Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-op: Society Ltd, Khoraghat, offered the 3rd highest rate of Rs. 76, 65, 000.00 for 7 years. It is seen from the enquiry report submitted by Circle officer, Bogribari Revenue Circle vide letter No. BBC. 11/99/450 dated 10.12.12 that the members of the Society are not reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery as because the distance of the area of operation village Khoraghat & Gulihara is about 10 K.M. to 12 K.M. away from the fishery and it is also reported that the said village wherefrom the distance was defined are falls under BTAD in Kokrajhar Dist. Hence, the Society does not fulfil the criteria of Rule-12 of Assam Fishery Rule'2005(as amended) as well as the tender condition of the NIT and moreover the Society do not belongs to the Tender Invited District(i.e). Dhubri Dist) as stipulates in terms of clause II of the Nit. (Copy of the enquiry report enclosed as Annexure-IV)." 16. I have gone through the records produced by the learned State Counsel to quel any doubt in respect of the impugned order of settlement. As the record has revealed, while making the settlement, the authority considered the relevant documents towards arriving at the findings recorded in the impugned order. It cannot be said to be a case of making the impugned order on extraneous consideration and/or any irrelevant consideration. 17. In Babul Das (supra), it has been held that the relevant factors to be considered for the purpose of proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules is not the area of operation of the society but the fact whether the particular society is in the neighborhood of the fishery or not. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court, while reiterating the nature and scope of Judicial Review in the matter of Government contracts held that the scope of Court's interference in such matter is very restricted and limited. Greater latitude is to be conceded to State authorities in matter of formulating conditions of tenders and awarding contracts. Interference by Court is not warranted unless action of tendering authority is malafide and is a misuse of statutory power. On perusal of the records, I do not find any malafide exercise of power and/or any misuse of statutory power. 18. Greater latitude is to be conceded to State authorities in matter of formulating conditions of tenders and awarding contracts. Interference by Court is not warranted unless action of tendering authority is malafide and is a misuse of statutory power. On perusal of the records, I do not find any malafide exercise of power and/or any misuse of statutory power. 18. In Jagdish Mandal (supra) once again the Apex Court dealing with the scope of interference in awarding contract and Judicial Review of administrative action reiterated the aforesaid position of law holding the field. In Educomp Datamatics Ltd. (supra), it was held by the Apex Court awarding of contract is open to interfere only when arbitrary, discriminatory or bias action is discernible and not otherwise. 19. In Tata Cellular, the Apex Court reminding the Court of its duties in the matter of determination of legality and/or validity of the decision making process in the matter of awarding of contract made the following significant observation. 77. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concern with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision maker-make understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationally, namely, Wednesbury reasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principal of proportionality. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principal of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the Court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention". 20. In Cochin International Airport (supra), the Apex Court referring to its earlier decision dealing with awarding of a contract by State, held that the discretionary power under Article 226 must be exercised with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. 21. On perusal of the entire materials on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it cannot be said to be a case of exercising the particular power in making impugned settlement of the fishery with the respondent No. 5 arbitrarily, irrationally and/or the decision is founded on malafide exercise of power and/or misuse of any statutory power. The bid amount cannot be sole criterion for settlement of a Fishery. Various other factors are to be considered in reference to the Rules. 22. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed." 24. In respect of appellant No. 2, learned Single Judge held as follows :- "23. Although the petitioner quoted a higher bid amount, as per the report and certificates available on record, they do not fulfill the tender conditions as the impugned order would reflect. As per the certificate issued by the District Fishery Development Officer, Dhubri, although the members of the society are shown as belonging to fishermen community and SC by caste, but their main occupation is purchase and sell of fish. Annexure-14 and 15 certificate annexed to the writ petition clearly depict the said position. As per the requirement of the tender condition, tenders can be submitted by the Cooperative Society/Self Help Group/NGO comprising of 100% actual fishermen. A tenderer as member of the society will have to be actual fishermen. Annexure-14 and 15 certificate annexed to the writ petition clearly depict the said position. As per the requirement of the tender condition, tenders can be submitted by the Cooperative Society/Self Help Group/NGO comprising of 100% actual fishermen. A tenderer as member of the society will have to be actual fishermen. However, the records have revealed that they are not the actual fishermen, but are engaged in purchase and sell of fish. In such a situation, if it was not settled with the fishery having had no experience of actual fishing which is the required condition for settlement of the fishery. It cannot be said that the authority issuing the impugned order committed any illegality. 24. The decision, on which, Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to i.e. Surjaya Das (supra) is not at all applicable to the case in hand. In the said case, the Court was concerned with the question as to whether the particular society was a Fishery Co-operative Society constituted by actual fishermen or not. In the given facts and circumstances, it was answered in the affirmative. No ratio as such has been laid down in the said decision. In the instant case, there categorical finding that the members of the petitioners society are not actual fishermen engaged in fishing, but are engaged in purchase and sell of fish and other avocations cannot be said to be falling under the category of actual fishermen. 25. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition also and accordingly stands dismissed." 25. On due consideration and having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court as above, we feel that interference with the order of the learned Single Judge on the grounds urged before us, which are primarily factual in nature, would not be justified. The settling authority after getting the requisite inputs from the Deputy Commissioner had recorded findings of fact leading to elimination of the two appellants and settlement of the fishery with respondent No. 5 which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge by a detailed and reasoned order, relevant portion of which has been extracted above. While upholding the order of settlement, learned Single Judge had examined the record and after due consideration rejected the challenge to the order of settlement. 26. While upholding the order of settlement, learned Single Judge had examined the record and after due consideration rejected the challenge to the order of settlement. 26. Having said that we are conscious of the fact that the 2005 amendment to the Fishery Rules has made a significant departure from the mode of settlement practised earlier by the Government primarily in respect of 60% category fisheries. Prior to 2005, by invoking the power under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, 1953 the State Government used to make direct settlement of the 60% category fisheries from amongst competing fishery cooperative societies. It was a need based assessment carried out by the State Government where prime consideration was grant of State largesse to down trodden and marginalised communities like actual fishermen of Scheduled Caste community or Maimal community of Barak valley. In such settlement the question of public revenue took the back seat while conferring of the state largess to marginalised communities took precedence. By the amendment of 2005, not only the pool of bidders have been enlarged by inclusion of self help groups and non-government organisations though limited to actual fishermen belonging to Schedule Caste community or Maimal community of Barak valley but such settlements are required to be made by following the tender system. The tender process are to be conducted by the concerned Deputy Commissioners, whereafter, the final settling authority is the State Government in the Fishery Department. Having accepted the tender system of settlement, the State cannot overlook the question of public revenue which is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while making settlement. 27. Having discussed the above, in the instant case we find that though respondent No. 5 had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the NIT and was given the settlement, its bid value was the 7th highest compared to the other unsuccessful bidders, including the two appellants. Though excess or unrealistic bidding cannot altogether be ruled out, the fact that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had offered higher bids than respondent No. 5 and have challenged the settlement granted to respondent No. 5 with all seriousness, indicates that these two bidders believed that their bid values were workable and reasonable. Though excess or unrealistic bidding cannot altogether be ruled out, the fact that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had offered higher bids than respondent No. 5 and have challenged the settlement granted to respondent No. 5 with all seriousness, indicates that these two bidders believed that their bid values were workable and reasonable. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the settling authority while short-listing respondent No. 5 for the purpose of settlement ought to have negotiated the settlement amount with respondent No. 5 so that a higher amount could have been procured for the settlement which would have been in the public interest. 28. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has clarified that out of 7 years of the total settlement period, almost 4½ years have elapsed. At this stage saddling the respondent No. 5 with a higher settlement amount with retrospective effect may not be justified. We also agree with Mr. Choudhury that any direction for negotiation of higher bid value with retrospective effect may not be justified. But certainly for the remaining part of the settlement as well as for future settlements the settling authority should keep this aspect in mind. 29. Net result of the above discussion is that while we uphold the order of settlement and the judgment of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the two writ appeals, we also direct the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Fishery Department to hold negotiation with respondent No. 5 for increasing the amount of settlement for the remaining part of the settlement period keeping in mind the bid amounts offered by the higher bidders including the two appellants. We also direct that, henceforth, while making such settlements, the settling authority should keep this aspect of the matter in mind and hold negotiation with the prospective settlement holder if the bid amount offered by the successful bidder is less than the bid amounts of the unsuccessful bidders. 30. With the above direction, both the writ appeals are disposed of.