JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as well as Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 6. 2. In this writ petition a challenge has been made to the decision of the Government to award settlement of the Gr.7/93 Raidak Fishery in favour of the respondent No.6 by the order dated 22-11-2016 for a period of seven years. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the writ petitioner was the sitting lessee in respect of the aforesaid Fishery for a period of seven years. Since the existing lease with the petitioner was coming to an end, hence, on 17.12.2015 the respondent No.3 had issued an NIT inviting bids for settlement of the aforesaid Fishery for a further period of seven years with effect from 2015-16 to 2021-22. The minimum Government value of the Fishery had been fixed at Rs. 63,000/-. The NIT dated 17.12.2015 had notified that the bids would be accepted until 2.00 p.m. of 18.01.2016 and the same would be opened at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The conditions of settlement stipulated in the NIT had further notified that for settlement of the 60% category of fishery the intending tenderer must submit Fishing Experience Certificate, Bakijai Clearance Certificate, Scheduled Caste Certificate, Certificate of Registration, the names and addresses and age of all the members of the society and distance certificate (neighbourhood certificate). 4. As many as four bidders including the writ petitioner and the respondent No.6 had submitted their tenders in response to the NIT dated 17.12.2015. On opening the bids, it could be found that the tenders of the remaining two bidders were defective and hence, those were rejected by the authorities. However, the tender of the petitioner was found to be technically responsive. The petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs. 4,64,107/- whereas the respondent No.6 had offered an amount of Rs. 7,77,000/- for the aforesaid Fishery. According to the petitioner, the tender of the respondent No.6 was technically defective as it had failed to submit the neighbourhood certificate for all the villages that constitute the respondent No.6 society. The petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs. 4,64,107/- whereas the respondent No.6 had offered an amount of Rs. 7,77,000/- for the aforesaid Fishery. According to the petitioner, the tender of the respondent No.6 was technically defective as it had failed to submit the neighbourhood certificate for all the villages that constitute the respondent No.6 society. That apart, the respondent No.6 had also failed to submit an updated members list in as much as many of the members whose names were included in the list furnished by the respondent No.6 were either dead or non-existent or engaged in Government service. As such, the bid of the respondent No.6 was technically defective and hence liable to be rejected by the authorities. 5. By referring to the documents available on record, Mr. A. Sarma submits that the respondent No.6 society, admittedly, comprises of seven villages out of which two of the villages, namely, Bishkhowa Pt. V and Pachim Kasuri Pt. I are only located in the Agomoni Revenue Circle whereas the remaining five villages in the Golakganj Circle of Dhubri district. The neighbourhood certificate submitted by the respondent No.6 along with the tender only reflects the distance of the aforementioned two villages situated at the Agomoni Revenue Circle but the respondent No.6 did not submit any such neighbourhood certificate pertaining to the five other villages located in the Golakganj Revenue Circle. Mr. Sarma has further contended that as per the NIT conditions the bidders are required to submit 100% Actual Fishermen Certificate and the petitioner society has submitted the same. However, no such certificate was produced by the respondent No.6 along with his tender. 6. Mr. Sarma has also invited the attention of this Court to the list of members submitted by the respondent No.6 to contend that the same is not a valid list since it contained the names of persons who are dead or engaged in Government service. With regard to the names of the 16 members from the village Bishkhowa and Kanuri village, Mr. Sarma submits that nine members are already dead and two members have shifted to Guwahati with their family for doing some other work. That apart, submits Mr. Sarma, one member is a grocery shopkeeper and one Mantu Ram Biswas had shifted to Kedar Pt.I seven years back. Sarma submits that nine members are already dead and two members have shifted to Guwahati with their family for doing some other work. That apart, submits Mr. Sarma, one member is a grocery shopkeeper and one Mantu Ram Biswas had shifted to Kedar Pt.I seven years back. Under the circumstances, there was no scope for the authorities to select the respondent No.6 for awarding the settlement. 7. Resisting the aforesaid arguments made by the petitioner's counsel, Sri. D. K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, submits that the respondent No.6 is a society consisting of actual fishermen and is also situated in the neighbourhood of the said Fishery. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted a neighbourhood certificate containing the names of only two villages from the Agomoni Revenue Circle but due to the delay in issuance of certificate by the Circle Officer of Golakganj Revenue Circle there was delay in producing the same covering the other five villages. Mr. Sarmah, however, submits that on 12.12.2016 the Circle Officer of Golakganj Circle had issued neighbourhood/distance certificate pertaining to the remaining five villages which has been brought on record in the form of Annexure-G to the additional affidavit. 8. Referring to the allegations regarding the membership list, Mr. Sarmah submits that the updated list of members have been brought on record by the respondent No.6 which would go to show that all the members therein are actual fishermen. He further submits that the delay in updating the membership list was due to reasons beyond control of the respondent No.6 and therefore, cannot be held as a ground for denying the settlement to the said respondent. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the settlement in favour of the respondent No.6 has been challenged primarily on three grounds, viz., (i) that the respondent No.6 has not submitted a proper neighbourhood/distance certificate, (ii) the respondent No.6 has failed to submit a certificate of 100% actual fishermen, and (iii) that it did not furnish an updated list of members. 10. 10. Coming to the first ground raised by the petitioner, it is seen from the record that the certificate dated 14.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner was relating to only two villages, viz., Bishkhowa and Pachim Kanuri which are in the Agomoni Revenue Circle but there was no neighbourhood/distance certificate for the five other villages falling in the Golakganj Revenue Circle. On receipt of the complaint dated 29.01.2016 filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 had issued a direction to the concerned Circle Officer to make an enquiry into the matter and submit a report. In response to the query made by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report indicating the fact that the members of the respondent No.6 society are 100% actual fishermen and located in the neighbourhood of the Fishery but is located little further away as compared to the writ petitioner society. The report submitted by the respondent No.4 is extracted herein below:- "To The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. Sub :- Submission of enquiry report. Ref.:- Your endorsement dated 19th Sept./16 on the body of the petition submitted by Chitta Nath Biswas, Secretary, M/S Raidak Burarchara Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that I have caused an on the spot enquiry on the issue of neighbourhood and 100% actual Fishermen in respect of M/S Gangadhar Fishery Co-operative society Ltd. The report submitted by the ADC, Dhubri and I/C Circle Officer, Agomoni has duly been consulted. During the course of enquiry, I have visited Bishkhowa Pt.IV, Paschim Kanuri pt-I and Kherbari pt-I and interacted with the local members of Fishery Co-operative Societies. Part of Gr.No. 7/93 Raidak Fishery is found to be very adjacent to Village Bishkhowa pt-IV. The village Paschim Kanuri, where some members of M/S Gangadhar Fishery Co-operative Society are residing is located a bit further from the Fish Mahol but is a neighbourhood of said Fish Mahal. The report submitted by the ADC, Dhubri on the issue of neighbourhood is found conformity to my field findings. On the other hand, the issue of 100% Fishermen has also been verified. It was alleged in the petition that the Circle Officer, Agomoni showed two dead members of M/S Gangadhar Fishery as alive in his report. The matter was enquired into and it is found that the allegation was false. On the other hand, the issue of 100% Fishermen has also been verified. It was alleged in the petition that the Circle Officer, Agomoni showed two dead members of M/S Gangadhar Fishery as alive in his report. The matter was enquired into and it is found that the allegation was false. However, said Gangadhar Fishery Co-operative Society has got lesser members of actual Fishermen in the neighbourhood of the Fishery in question than that of Raidak Burarchara Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. It is a fact that the NOKs. of the deceased members of Gangadhar Fishery Co-operative Society are continuing as members of the society and the same was rightly mentioned by the Circle Officer in his report. The major portion of Raidak Fishery is located near Kherbari part-I and a large No. of actual Fishermen belonging to Raidak Burarchara Fishery Co-operative Society are residing at that village and it was stated by the villagers that they are their livelihood by Fishing at Raidak Fishery. In this connection, the original petition of the Secy Raidak Burarchara Fishery Co-operative Society and Counter complaint petition of Gangadhar Fishery Co-operative Society have been enclosed herewith for favour of your kind information and taking further necessary action. Enclo : As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible A.D.C. Dhubri" 11. Through its counter affidavit, the respondent No.6 has also brought on record a copy of the neighbourhood/distance certificate dated 12.12.2016 issued by the authority of the Golokganj Circle, a perusal of which goes to indicate the distance of the villages from the Fishery. The depiction made in the said certificate are as follows:- "Sl. No. Name of Village Distance from the Fishery 1 Dakhin Tokrerchara Pt-IV 3.5 KM 2 Uttar Raipur Pt-I 4.5 KM 3 Uttar Raipur Pt-II 5 KM 4 Dakhin Raipur Pt-III 7.5 KM 5 Kedar Pt-I 7 KM. This certificate is issued only for fishery tender purpose." 12. From the above certificate, the entries whereof are not in dispute, it is established that both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 society are located in the neighbourhood of the Fishery but the location of the writ petitioner is a little closer to the said Fishery. 13. This certificate is issued only for fishery tender purpose." 12. From the above certificate, the entries whereof are not in dispute, it is established that both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 society are located in the neighbourhood of the Fishery but the location of the writ petitioner is a little closer to the said Fishery. 13. Referring to the certificate dated 12-12-2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the aforementioned five villages are not located in the neighbourhood of the fishery and therefore, it is established on the face of the record that the respondent no. 6 did not meet the NIT condition of being in the neighbourhood. 14. The question as to what would constitute the neighbourhood in the context of proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Brahmaputra Part-II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Limited v. State of Assam & others reported in 2003 (1) GLT 155 wherein this Court had made the following observations :- "(14) The term 'neighbourhood' does not express any definite idea of distance. A few feet or several 100 yards or even a greater distance from an object would be in its neighbourhood. (15) Thus, no mathematical formula has been devised to define and measure neighbourhood. Within the meaning attributed to the word as above, there is evidently an element of flexibility and, therefore, while dealing with the proviso to Rule 12 as above, it would, in our opinion, neither be permissible nor desirable to ascertain the neighbourhood by a measuring tape. If the residence of the members of an otherwise eligible fishery co-operative society is in the vicinity and proximity of the fishery as is understood in common parlance, they are deemed to be in the neighbourhood thereof. Any attempt to measure the neighbourhood in terms of inches, feet, yards or centimeters and metres, would render the proviso outiose in a given fact situation." 15. Having regard to the observations made by this court in the case of Brahmaputra Part-II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Limited (supra) , merely on the basis of the certificate dated 12-12-2016, it is not possible to conclude that the respondent no 6 is not in the neighbourhood and therefore, did not fulfill the NIT condition on such count. 16. Having regard to the observations made by this court in the case of Brahmaputra Part-II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Limited (supra) , merely on the basis of the certificate dated 12-12-2016, it is not possible to conclude that the respondent no 6 is not in the neighbourhood and therefore, did not fulfill the NIT condition on such count. 16. Coming to the allegation of irregularities in the list of members, I find from the record that the respondent No.6 has produced a list of updated members of the society wherefrom it can be seen that they are all actual fishermen. Responding to the allegation that a particular member was a Government servant, Mr. D. K. Sarmah submits that even the members of the petitioner society consisting of Government servant. On the issue of Santosh Das being a member despite being a Government official, Mr. Sarmah has invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the said person stating that he is no longer a member of any SHG/NGO/society. Be that as it many, a decision on the status of the members of both the societies, on the face of allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties, would require factual enquiries on disputed questions of fact which would not be possible in a writ petition. 17. It is no doubt correct that along with its tender, the respondent no 6 had failed to submit a neighbourhood Certificate covering all the seven villages. But record reveals that before taking a final decision in the matter, the concerned Deputy Commissioner had called for a report which was duly submitted by the ADC Dhubri. The said report, as quoted above, comprehensibly deals with all the objections raised by the petitioner. The correctness of the entries made in the report has not been disputed by the writ petitioner. It appears that in the report submitted by the ADC Dhubri a very balance and factually correct picture has been portrayed permitting the authorities to take a proper decision on the claims and counter-claims of the parties. Therefore, it is not a case where the decision to award the fishery was taken without proper verification of the facts. 18. It must be noted herein that the price offered by the respondent No.6 is almost double that of the offer made by the petitioner society. Therefore, it is not a case where the decision to award the fishery was taken without proper verification of the facts. 18. It must be noted herein that the price offered by the respondent No.6 is almost double that of the offer made by the petitioner society. While make settlement of a fishery for a period of seven years, the interest of the government revenue would be an important factor which cannot be lost sight of by the settling authorities. Having regard to the report submitted by the ADC, Dhubri, it cannot be said that the respondent no 6 did not fulfill any of the NIT conditions. 19. It is not in dispute that the Fishery in question belongs to the 60% category and is required to be settled keeping in mind the provisions of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "12. Except those referred to in sub-rule 8(b) above, all registered Fisheries shall be settled under tender system of sale in place of sale auction : Provided that the Government shall settle a 60% category fishery with special category of co-operative Societies, Non-Government Organizations and Self Help Groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned by the Tender System. Explanation 1:- For the purpose of this rule, the words "special category" means and includes the Cooperative Societies, Self-Help Groups, Non-Governmental Organisations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Scheduled Caste community or Maimal community of erstwhile Cachar district. Who cannot participate in competitive bidding because of poor financial condition due to famine, flood, draught, epidemic of any other circumstances which are beyond control of the society, non-Governmental Organisation or Self Help Groups as the case may be; Explanation 2:- For the purpose of this rule "a 60% category fishery" means 60% of registered fisheries available in a Civil Sub-Division eligible for settlement in a particular year." 20. In a recent judgment of this Court rendered in WP(C) No.904 of 2016 [Gangadhar Fishery Co-op. Society Ltd. v. The State of Assam & others] it has been held that the respondent authorities have a duty to fulfill the object of the Fishery Rules while making settlement of fisheries as per Rule 12. The observations made in paragraph 33 would be relevant and are quoted herein below:- "33. Society Ltd. v. The State of Assam & others] it has been held that the respondent authorities have a duty to fulfill the object of the Fishery Rules while making settlement of fisheries as per Rule 12. The observations made in paragraph 33 would be relevant and are quoted herein below:- "33. A perusal of the aforementioned Rules would go to show that the same has a benevolent object which is to promote the interest of the group of people mentioned therein. Proviso to Rule 12, therefore, clearly enjoins a duty upon the Government to take proper care that the 60% category Fishery is settled with the special category of co-operative societies mentioned there-in. Unlike in the case of an open commercial tender, in case of settlement of a fishery under the Rules, there is a statutory duty cast upon the Government to ensure that the objective of the Fishery Rules is realized in its letter and spirit. In doing so, it would not only be open but also incumbent upon the Government to make such relevant enquiries so as to reach a satisfaction that not only the most deserving group is conferred with the settlement but also to ensure that the interest of government revenue is adequately protected. Therefore, subject to fulfillment of the NIT conditions, the price offered by the highest bidder must receive utmost priority and should normally be accepted, unless there are very good and compelling reasons to deviate therefrom. As long as the authorities provide a level playing field to all the bidders, mere technical defects not affecting the substance of the tender should not be permitted to defeat the underlying objective of the Fishery Rules." 21. Applying the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Gangadhar Fishery Co-op. Society Ltd (supra) I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondent authorities to award the settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent no 6 does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this court. Once it is held that the respondent no 6 did fulfill the NIT conditions and was also eligible for settlement under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, the higher price offered by it must receive precedence at the hands of the authorities. 22. Once it is held that the respondent no 6 did fulfill the NIT conditions and was also eligible for settlement under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, the higher price offered by it must receive precedence at the hands of the authorities. 22. For the reasons stated here-in above, It is held that this writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Records be returned forthwith. Parties to bear their own cost.