JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the writ applicant. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel for the State-respondent. 2. This is an intra Court appeal against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 7756/2019 closing the writ petition of the writ petitioner who is the appellant in the present appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant had submitted its bid in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 04.10.2019 issued by the respondent authorities for settlement of "Brahmputra Part-I and Dibang River Fishery." The grievance with which the appellant approached the writ Court inter-alia is that the Department drastically enhanced the annual value of the Fishery in an arbitrary manner so as to eliminate several bidders such as the appellant from the realm of the tender process. The writ Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 while directing the learned State counsel to obtain instructions, gave provisional relief to the appellant by allowing it to submit its tender without conforming to the enhanced value, in so far as the bid security was concerned. 4. Accordingly, the appellant submitted its bid and the bids were then opened by the authorities wherein, it transpired that the appellant was not the highest bidder. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since the appellant was not the highest bidder, it was in no way prejudiced on account of the re-fixation of the annual value of the Fishery. Consequently, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition at the motion stage. 5. Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent authorities had enhanced the annual revenue of the Fishery to Rs. 84,52,500/- per year, which works out to Rs. 5,91,67,500/- for seven (7) years. According to the appellant, the same is not only exorbitantly high but is also arbitrary. He submits that the raising of the revenue of the said fishery to such an exorbitant amount is only to prevent the appellant and other similarly placed persons from participating in the tender process. He further submits that by re-defining the boundary of the fishery, the area in fact has been reduced. 6. He submits that the raising of the revenue of the said fishery to such an exorbitant amount is only to prevent the appellant and other similarly placed persons from participating in the tender process. He further submits that by re-defining the boundary of the fishery, the area in fact has been reduced. 6. The learned Single Judge no doubt permitted the appellant to participate in the tender process provisionally but since the issue raised by the appellant about raising of the annual value for the Fishery concerned arbitrarily having not been decided, the appellant being aggrieved has filed the instant writ appeal. 7. During the course of the argument the learned State counsel was asked to obtain instruction as to whether the respondent authorities will be cancelling the tender process in as much as there was none who submitted bids which was even near the enhanced annual value. To this query made by us, the learned State counsel came back with an instruction that the respondent authorities will not be cancelling the tender process and that they will be acting upon the tender process by accepting the highest bidder subject to the said bid having been made in conformity with the other requirement and as per law. 8. We have heard the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have also perused the material available on record. 9. The contention of the appellant that the respondent authorities enhanced the value of the Fishery arbitrarily and therefore, the intervention of this Court is required cannot be accepted in as much as the appellant was permitted to participate in the tender process and the bid submitted by it would be considered on merit alongwith others. The learned State counsel on instructions has also submitted that the respondent authorities will be going ahead and finalising the tender process as per the tender notice that was floated. It would have been different if the tender process was cancelled for want of any of the prospective bidders having not submitted their respective bids competitively as because the enhanced value of the Fishery or the bid process would be cancelled as because none of the bids commensurate to the enhanced annual value. As the same is not the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge impugned by the appellant. 10. As the same is not the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge impugned by the appellant. 10. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed. No cost.