JUDGMENT : PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J. 1. Heard Mr.J.I.Borbhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.M.K.Choudhury learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.N.Borua, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr.S.R.Barua, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent. 2. The present petitioner No. 1 is the No. 11 Part-V Kalong Nadi Anchalik Meen Samabai Samity Ltd represented by its Secretary, Jagadish Barman. The respondent No. 2 is aggrieved by the settlement order dated 27.2.2017 issued under Memo No. FISH,105/2008/Vol.-I/1090 by the respondent No.3, the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department in favour of the respondent No.5, Pub Maloibari Mach Byabasayi Samabai Samity Ltd. represented by its Secretary Sri Gauranga Barman. The settlement of the No. 11 Kalang Nadi Fishery Mahal situated in the district of Marigaon is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 3. After expiry of the earlier settlement period the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon issued notice inviting tender from intending bidders in the month of August/September, 2015 to settle the fishery for seven years. Only two bidders participated in the said tender process and as such, the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department, respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 4, Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to re-tender. The same was issued vide re-tender notice dated 23.12.2015. The petitioner society submitted its tender papers as per requirement in the said NIT dated 23.12.2015 and altogether six number of participants participated in the said tender process. After opening of the bids, the comparative statement was prepared and forwarded it to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 1.3.2016. 4. The respondent No. 5 was the highest bidder quoting Rs. 8,55,555/- annually and on the other hand, the petitioner No. 1 was the fifth highest bidder with its quotation of Rs. 5,51,001/- annually. The re-tender process was initiated on 29.1.2016. But the same was not settled by the State respondents though comparative statements were sent to the Government on 1.3.2016. One Sri Ashok Das, President of Matshya Byabasayee Samabai Samiti was allowed to run the fishery on daily basis with 20% increase of earlier settlement rate of fishery for indefinite period. 5,51,001/- annually. The re-tender process was initiated on 29.1.2016. But the same was not settled by the State respondents though comparative statements were sent to the Government on 1.3.2016. One Sri Ashok Das, President of Matshya Byabasayee Samabai Samiti was allowed to run the fishery on daily basis with 20% increase of earlier settlement rate of fishery for indefinite period. The petitioners filed W.P(C) No. 6261/2016 which was disposed of on 9.2.2017 directing the respondent No. 2 to pursue the tender process as per tender notice and to bring to its logical end within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed in the said W.P(C) No. 6261/2016. Subsequent thereto the impugned order of settlement in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 27.2.2017 was issued by the respondent No. 3. 5. Mr. Borbhuyan assailed the impugned settlement order on the ground that the respondent No.3 without considering the mandate of law issued the impugned order without justifying the reasons as to why the respondent No. 5 was allotted the settlement order inasmuch as the Board of Directors of said Society of the respondent No.5 was dissolved for failure on the part of the Directors of the said Board to hold Annual General Meeting(AGM) and one man committee was appointed by the concerned authority to run the Society. The respondent No. 5 was running another fishery Jiyang Ghoghra Itila Group Fishery in the Kamrup(M) district for a period of seven years with effect from August , 2010 to August, 2017. On the date of settlement i.e. on 27.2.2017 the respondent No. 5 was settled with another fishery. As per the guidelines for revision of fishery Co-operatives and the minutes of the discussion of revision of existing policy meeting held on 14.6.2012, not more than one fishery Mahal should be settled with each fishery co-operative Society. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 5 and its members are not residents situated within the neighbourhood of the said fishery Mahal in question nor the Society is from the Morigaon district .The Secretary of the private respondent No. 5 is a Contractor by profession having other sources of business and as such, the Members of respondent No. 5 Society does not fall under the category of 100% actual fishermen in the Society. The same also violates the resolution No. 6 of the said guidelines which stipulates that one fishery co-operative Society for a particular fishery Mahal / group of Mahals and the Society must be located in the neighbourhood of the said fishery Mahal within the maximum limit of 5 K.M. side by side of existing society. The respondent No. 5 did not fulfil the tender condition inasmuch as, the PAN card submitted was not in the name of the Samabai Samity, but standing in the individual name of the Secretary of the respondent Society. Bringing such deficiencies on the part of respondent No.5, the petitioner brought the same to the notice of respondents vide representation dated 16.2.2017 where after the impugned settlement order was passed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second highest bidder Society consist of members beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Morigaon district and the said Society had the record of subletting fishery during the tenure of its settlement. The third and fourth highest bidder did not submit their call deposits and the fifth highest bidder is the present petitioner fulfilling all the criteria required under the tender condition and is situated within the neighbourhood of the subject fishery Mahal and the respondent ought to have settled the said fishery to the petitioner Society. 7. Mr.Borbhuyan in order to buttress his argument relied on the following decisions: 1. Pijupara Haridoba Paharpara, Jaljally Matchya Babyasai Sampradai Samitee ltd Vs State of Assam and ors, (2001) 1 GauLT 139 WP(C) No.5966 of 2000 decided on 5.1.2001. 2. Manash Padmabari Jiniram Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd Vs State of Assam and ors, (2009) 4 GauLT 909 WP(C) 1566 of 2008 decided on 31/7/2009. 3. Mangaldoi Pioneer Fishery Co-Op. Society Ltd. M/s Sati Radhika Matshyjibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs State of Assam and ors, 1996 3 GauLT 547 Civil Rule 2093 and 2161 of 1995 decided on 9/8/1996. 8. Mr.M.K.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the present writ petition is with regard to the settlement process of 11 No. Part-V Kalong Nadi Fishery of Morigaon district and not Jiyang Ghoghra Itila Group Fishery of Kamrup (M) district. 8. Mr.M.K.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the present writ petition is with regard to the settlement process of 11 No. Part-V Kalong Nadi Fishery of Morigaon district and not Jiyang Ghoghra Itila Group Fishery of Kamrup (M) district. The recording in the comparative statement regarding submission of PAN card belonging to the Secretary of the Society as individual is not correct inasmuch, while submitting the tender papers the respondent No. 5 Society submitted the PAN card issued in favour of the society along with other required documents including the one, standing in the name of the Secretary which the officials failed to record the same in the comparative statement. It is further submitted that the AGM of respondent No. 5 was not held and as such Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society vide order dated 1.2.2016 dissolved the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 5 Society and appointed one Deben Ch. Boro as one man committee to look after the administrative affairs of it. Thereafter on 10.5.2016 a General Meeting was held and the resolution was adopted to hold the AGM on 28.6.2016 and after holding the same a new set of Board of Directors were appointed by the Members of the society after taking a resolution. The said resolution was approved and accepted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Guwahati on 4.8.2016. Considering the aforesaid formalities the respondent No.5 society was handed over the fishery Mahal vide possession certificate date 4.3.2017. Disputing the allegations with respect to the members of the respondent No. 5 Society, Mr. Choudhury submits that Gauranga Barman, Secretary of the respondent No. 5 Society is actual fisherman and resident of Pub Malaybari village which is situated in the neighbourhood of fishery Mahal and to that effect various certificates were issued by the Asom Anususit Jati Parishad affirming that all the members of respondent No.5 are 100% actual fishermen and resident of neighbouring Pub Malaybari village. Accordingly, it is further submitted that the said facts were duly considered even after the representation of the present petitioner and as such the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Fishery Department in the impugned settlement order dated 27.2.2017 held that there is no Rule in Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 that one Society has to be settled with only one fishery and as per the opinion of Legal Remembrancer regarding the applicability of any judgment of this Court the same cannot be generalised until it becomes a Rule. Mr. Choudhury thus, submits that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned settlement order. 9. From the submission of the learned counsel it is seen that the issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to non consideration of the issue of neighbourhood of the members of the bidder Societies from the fishery. Other issues are whether the respondent No.5 is entitled for the subsequent settlement of the fishery when he was already settled with another fishery prior to the subsequent settlement by the impugned order. The PAN card of the respondent No.5 which was submitted stood in the name of the Secretary in his individual capacity. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted the PAN card both in the individual capacity of the Secretary and also in the name of the Society and whether the PAN card of the former can be considered. 10. The present fishery is the 60% category fishery and as per Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953(as amended up to 2005) and there is a specific condition that the bidder Society must consists of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned and the tender condition stipulates that the Society must be within the district Morigaon wherein the fishery is located. From the impugned order dated 27.2.2017, whereby the subject fishery was settled with respondent No.5, it is seen that the said condition with regard to the issue of neighbourhood of the Societies (consisting of 100% fishermen) from the fishery was not considered. The bid of the respondent No. 5 was considered as it was the highest bidder and on the other hand, the bid of the petitioner is the second lowest bidder whose quotation was below the Government fixed value of Rs. The bid of the respondent No. 5 was considered as it was the highest bidder and on the other hand, the bid of the petitioner is the second lowest bidder whose quotation was below the Government fixed value of Rs. 6,38,657/-.The respondent No.1 in the impugned order observed/discussed that in the event of settlement of the fishery with the petitioner, a substantial loss of the Government revenue would occur. It has already been discussed that the respondent No. 5 was settled with Jiyang Ghogra Itila Group Fishery of Kamrup(M) district. The order dated 7.8.2010 is relied by the present petitioner whereby the said Jiyang Ghogra Itila Group Fishery was settled with the respondent No.5. Therein the said order, the respondent No.5 Society was held to be in the neighbourhood of the said Jiyang Ghogra Itila Group Fishery of Kamrup(M) district. The records of the subject tender process in the writ petition is produced by Mr. S.R. Barua, learned Govt. Advocate. From the records it is seen that a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Sonapur was submitted by the respondent No.5 certifying that the respondent No.5 and its members are residents of the neighbourhood of No.11 Kollong Nadi Pt-V Fishery of Morigaon and Jiyang Ghogra Itila Group Fishery. The petitioner as seen from the records also submitted a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle certifying that the village Gobardhan grant is situated by the side of No.11 Kolong Nadi Pt-V Fishery. As hereinabove mentioned the said impugned order lacks of any finding with respect to the issue with respect to the neighbourhood which in my opinion, is a vital omission on the part of the respondent No.1 while issuing the impugned settlement order to the respondent No.5 and the settlement is with respect to the 60% of the fisheries under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (with amendment Rules, 2005). 11. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was not considered at all as its quotation was below than the minimum Government revenue assessed and fixed in the tender. It is the revenue earning of the respondent State that is considered which is quite obvious. 11. In the present case in hand, the petitioner was not considered at all as its quotation was below than the minimum Government revenue assessed and fixed in the tender. It is the revenue earning of the respondent State that is considered which is quite obvious. However, when a term stipulated in the tender which states that the society must be from the district and in the neighbourhood of the location of the fishery, the fulfilment of the said criteria must be reflected in the order of settlement which in the present case is totally missing. 12. The other issue is with respect to whether respondent No.5 can be considered when it was settled with another fishery. On perusal of the tender condition there is no such criteria that any bidder who was settled prior to the settlement of this fishery cannot participate in the tender. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the PAN card submitted by the respondent No.5 is in the individual name of the Secretary but not in the name of respondent No.5 Society. From the condition of the tender, it is seen that submission of PAN card is the requirement, whether the same is standing in the name of the Society or in the individual name of the Secretary is not mentioned nor clarified. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the act of settlement authority accepting PAN card in the name of the Secretary (individual) is wrong inasmuch as the audited balance sheet of the respondent No.5 Society is very much on record. 13. In Manash Padamabari Jiniram Fishery Co-operative Society ltd. almost in a similar factual matrix situation wherein there was a specific tender condition of neighbourhood and "that district" as that of Clause 2 of the re-tender notice dated 23.12.2015, this Court held as follows: "21. Bearing in mind the above statutory objective of providing livelihood to actual neighbourhood Fishermen, the said objective would be better served if the neighbourhood Society with a larger number of Fishermen members in the neighbourhood of the Fishery are preferred, as compared to another Society which will benefit a smaller Fishermen group, located in a relatively smaller neighbourhood area of the Fishery. 22. 22. In so far as the present case in concerned, there is no finding recorded by the settling authority that the respondent Society fulfils the criteria of neighbourhood of "that district" as is envisaged by the Clause II of the NIT. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned decision dated 5.4.2008(Annexure XI) is wrong and the same cannot be sustained in law. For this and all the other reasons discussed, the impugned order in favour of the respondent No.4 Society is quashed." 14. From the aforesaid discussion as one of the vital conditions of the tender document with respect to the issue of the neighbourhood and location of the Society in "the district" wherein the fishery is located is not decided, in my opinion, this writ petition has merit. The same is in clear violation of Clause-2 of the tender notice and under such circumstances, the impugned settlement order dated 27.2.2017 under Memo No. FISH 105/2008/Vol-I/1090 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department in favour of respondent No. 5 Society is liable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly, do. The fishery has since long remained unsettled, under such circumstances, the Government is to apply its discretion in taking a decision for arriving at a logical conclusion of the tender or in else may take steps as per law for the settlement of the fishery. However, it is made clear that the respondent No.5 shall not possess the fishery as per the settlement order which is impugned in this writ petition inasmuch as the same is set aside and quashed. 15. The records produced by Sri S.R. Barua, the learned Govt. Advocate be returned back to him.