ORDER : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. This order will dispose of both WP(C) Nos. 4822 of 2018 and 6022 of 2018. 2. Heard Mr. A Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dimbeswar Das in WP(C) No. 4822 of 2018 and Sri P Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Golap Hazarika, in WP(C) No. 6022 of 2018. Also heard Mr. S.B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (Corporation) and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 3. Matter relates to settlement of Kachadhara Fishery, pursuant to Tender Notice No. 2/2018. 4. Kachadhara Fishery (Fishery) is under control of the Corporation. In WP(C) No. 4822 of 2018, prayer has been made for quashing the Tender Notice No. 2 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 on the ground that the Fishery has been notified to be within Morigaon district, whereas it is within Nagaon district, thereby debarring prospective tenderers from Nagaon district like the petitioner from participating in the tender process in terms of Clause-2.4 of the tender notice. 5. A perusal of the tender notice issued by the Corporation would go to show that the Fishery was shown as belonging to Morigaon district. Clause-2 of the tender notice mentioned eligibility criteria. As per Clause-2.4, a tenderer has to be a resident of the concerned district against which tender has to be submitted. 6. Contending that this clause 2.4 restricted submission of tender to those tenderers being resident of the same district as the Fishery, the writ petition came to be filed. Basic contention of the petitioner is that such restrictive clause would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it discriminated against equally situated tenderers, but only on the ground of being a resident of a different district. On the other hand, what is relevant is nearness to the Fishery or neighbourhood of the Fishery. 7. This Court by order dated 23.07.2018 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner be permitted to submit his tender, but submission of his tender would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. It was clarified that tender of the petitioner should be considered on its own merit and should not be rejected on the ground that petitioner is not a resident of the same district. It was clarified that tender of the petitioner should be considered on its own merit and should not be rejected on the ground that petitioner is not a resident of the same district. Relevant portion of the order dated 23.07.2018 is extracted hereunder:— “Petitioner is interested in submitting tender in respect of Kachadhara Fishery. According to the petitioner the fishery is situated in the district of Nagaon but in the tender notice No. 2/2018 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, this fishery has been shown to be situated in the district of Morigaon. Petitioner is aggrieved by Clause 2.4 of the tender notice which stipulates that the tenderer must be a resident of the same district in which the fishery is situated. Submission made is that because of the inclusion of the fishery in Morigaon district, petitioner would be debarred from participating in the tender by virtue of this clause. Mr. S.B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel submits that one of the documents submitted by the petitioner i.e. certificate of the Circle Officer, Raha Revenue Circle certifying that Kachadhara Beels falls within Nagaon district may not be a genuine document. He further submits that the fishery is not within Nagaon district. Issue notice, returnable 4 (four) weeks. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 whereas Mr. S.B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Extra copies within 3 (three) days. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, it is hereby directed as an interim measure that petitioner may be permitted to submit his tender in respect of Kachadhara Fishery pursuant to tender notice No. 2/2018 but submission of tender by the petitioner would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. It is made clear that tender of the petitioner may be considered on its own merit and shall not be rejected on the ground that petitioner is not a resident of the same district.” 8. The second writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 6022 of 2018 was, thereafter filed by Sri Golap Hazarika, contending that pursuant to tender notice dated 07.07.2018, he had submitted tender; tender papers were opened on 25.07.2018. Both the petitioners submitted tenders. Following evaluation of the tenders, it was found that petitioner Sri Dimbeswar Das had submitted highest bid of Rs. 51,00,000.00 for seven years. Both the petitioners submitted tenders. Following evaluation of the tenders, it was found that petitioner Sri Dimbeswar Das had submitted highest bid of Rs. 51,00,000.00 for seven years. Bid of the other petitioner, Sri Golap Hazarika was Rs. 32,90,000.00, which was the second highest bid. Sri Golap Hazarika has contended that though Sri Dimbeswar Das was the highest bidder, he was a resident of Nagaon district and, therefore, as per Clause-2.4 of the tender notice, he was not eligible. Being an eligible bidder and being the highest valid bidder, Sri Golap Hazarika should, therefore, be awarded the settlement order. 9. This Court by order dated 06.09.2018 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that final settlement order in respect of the Fishery should not be issued and directed that both the cases be tagged together. 10. Before examining the validity of Clause 2.4 above, it would be apposite to consider the relevant pleadings and documents. 11. Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon has filed an affidavit in WP(C) No. 4822 of 2018. In that affidavit, it is stated that the Fishery falls under the jurisdiction of Raha Revenue Circle in the district of Nagaon. It is specifically stated that the Fishery is situated within the revenue villages of Kachadhara Gaon, Jarabari, Bhatorbori, Chotorbori, Putakollong and Kachadhara Beel, all under Barapujia Mouza of Raha Revenue Circle in the district of Nagaon. 12. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon in his affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 4822 of 2018 has also admitted that the Fishery is within the jurisdiction of Raha Revenue Circle in the district of Nagaon. 13. Learned Government Advocate submits on the basis of written instructions received from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, that the Fishery is not within Morigaon district but is within Raha Revenue Circle of Nagaon district. 14. In the light of the categorical assertion of the district administrations of both Nagaon and Morigaon districts that the Fishery is within the jurisdiction of Raha Revenue Circle of Nagaon district, there is no reason to take a contra view by the Court. Therefore, it appears to be an oversight of the Corporation to have notified the Fishery as being situated in Morigaon district when it is clearly in Nagaon district. Corporation has not filed affidavit in either of the two cases. Therefore, it appears to be an oversight of the Corporation to have notified the Fishery as being situated in Morigaon district when it is clearly in Nagaon district. Corporation has not filed affidavit in either of the two cases. In any view of the matter, it is the decision of the revenue authorities in such matters which should prevail. 15. Having said that, Clause 2.4 of the tender notice may now be adverted to. Translated, it reads as under:— “2.4. A tenderer submitting tender for the Fishery must be a resident of the same district in which the Fishery is situated.” 16. This clause can lead to unforeseen complications. In a hypothetical case, a Fishery may cover more than one district, which is the position in respect of quite a few large fisheries in the State of Assam. It may also happen that though a fishery is situated in one district it may be situated near the border of another neighbouring district. Despite being in the relative neighbourhood of the Fishery, a prospective tenderer of the other district would stand debarred from submitting tender for the Fishery, whereas a prospective tenderer residing far away from the Fishery, but within the same district may be eligible to bid for the Fishery. Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, which deals with settlement of 60% category of fisheries by the State Government, mentions neighbourhood as one of the relevant criteria for settlement. After the amendment w.e.f. 04.02.2005, Rule 12 says that all registered fisheries shall be settled under the tender system provided that Government shall settle 60% category fishery with special category of cooperative fisheries, non-government organizations and self help groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the Fishery concerned. 17. Though Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 may not be applicable in respect of settlement of fisheries by the Corporation, nonetheless, what can be deduced from the above is that in respect of settlement of fisheries, the relevant criteria is neighbourhood of the fishery or nearness of the tenderer to the fishery. Therefore, instead of insistence on neighbourhood, insistence on tenderer having residence in the same district as the fishery may lead to a situation where deserving tenderers who are otherwise in the neighbourhood of the fishery would be excluded from the tender process only on the ground of being a resident of another district. Therefore, instead of insistence on neighbourhood, insistence on tenderer having residence in the same district as the fishery may lead to a situation where deserving tenderers who are otherwise in the neighbourhood of the fishery would be excluded from the tender process only on the ground of being a resident of another district. This is an artificial distinction brought in by the Corporation having no nexus with the object of settlement of fishery. As a matter of fact, such clause may be offensive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the light of the discussions made above, matter is remanded back to the Corporation to finalize the tender process for settlement of the Fishery dehors Clause 2.4. As a matter of fact, Corporation may re-consider utility of retention of such a clause in tender notice as it may act as a barrier to effective tendering. On remand, consequential decision shall be taken by the Managing Director of the Corporation in the light of the discussions made above and in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No cost.