JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned State counsel representing the State respondents, who produced the records. 2. The petitioner is a registered co-operative society and all the members of the petitioner's society are from the fisherman community which is the main occupation. On 11.08.2017 the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon the respondent No. 3 issued notice inviting tender for settlement of No. 10 Kolong Nadi Fishery, Nagaon for a period of 7 years. The last date for submission of the tender was fixed on 15.09.2017. All together, three tenders including one of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 submitted their response to the said NIT dated 11.08.2017. On 15.09.2017, the respondent authority evaluated the tender papers and found the petitioner society as the highest bidder at Rs. 2,91,000/-, respondent No. 5 the second highest bidder at Rs. 2,75,000/- and another M/s. Pachim Khaloibandha Matsyajibi Samabai Samittee Limited the 3rd highest bidder at Rs. 2,51,000/-. The respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 19.04.2018 on the basis of temporary settlement order by the Joint Secretary, Government of Assam, Fishery Department allowed the petitioner to operate the said fishery on daily basis at his offered bid of Rs. 2,91,000/-. Possession was accordingly delivered by the Circle Officer, Raha Revenue Circle on 03.05.2018. 3. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 01.12.2018 settled No. 10 Kalong Nadi Fishery with the respondent No. 5 who was the second highest bidder at the bid value of Rs. 2,75,000/- per annum for a period of 7 years from the date of handing over the possession of the fishery. The bid of the petitioner's society was rejected on the ground that it had not furnished bakijai clearance certificate with his tender papers though submitted subsequently and the distance between the petitioner society and the fishery in question was 15 k.m. The petitioner on 05.09.2018 applied for bakijai clearance certificate before the competent authority for submission in the tender for the fishery in question. But as he did not receive the same immediately, he submitted the acknowledgement receipt issued against application for issuance of fresh bakijai clearance certificate along with tender papers. But as he did not receive the same immediately, he submitted the acknowledgement receipt issued against application for issuance of fresh bakijai clearance certificate along with tender papers. On receipt of the bakijai clearance certificate, the same was submitted directly to the respondent No. 2. 4. The petitioner filed WP(C) No. 8754/2018 challenging the order dated 01.12.2018 whereby the fishery was settled with the respondent No. 5. The said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 01.12.2018 and remanded back the matter to the Fishery Department, Government of Assam for passing fresh order of settlement pursuant to NIT dated 11.08.2017 keeping in view the discussion and observation made in the judgment. 5. The respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and requested to conduct a fresh enquiry and submit report on the issue of neighbourhood of all the three bidding societies. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon issued notice to the petitioner society to appear on 11.07.2019 along with some specified documents and in compliance thereof the petitioner appeared and submitted all the documents. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon thereafter submitted a report in respect of the clarification sought for by the respondent No. 2 on the issue of neighbourhood. The respondent No. 2 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 by way of which the said fishery was settled with the respondent No. 5. As per the learned Senior counsel of the petitioner the said impugned order dated 09.09.2019 was passed without taking into consideration the discussions and observations made in the order dated 07.05.2019 of this court. 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order reviewed the order of this court by way of which the respondent No. 2 was directed to pass an appropriate order. The respondent No. 2 considered some irrelevant and new grounds which are not at all required for settlement of the fishery. The petitioner's society submitted up to date audit account for the year 2016-17 and the experience certificate as required in the said NTT dated 11.08.2017 along with bid documents but the respondent No. 2 refused to settle the fishery on the ground of non-submission of the said documents. The petitioner's society submitted up to date audit account for the year 2016-17 and the experience certificate as required in the said NTT dated 11.08.2017 along with bid documents but the respondent No. 2 refused to settle the fishery on the ground of non-submission of the said documents. The impugned order was passed as a mere eyewash showing compliance of the order passed by this court, however, keeping in mind of the respondent No. 2 the pre determined view to settle the fishery with the respondent No. 5. In fact, while passing the order in WP(C) No. 8754/2018 it was observed from the records that the respondent No. 5 submitted application dated 13.08.2018 before the Hon'ble Fishery Minister, Government of Assam seeking settlement of the fishery. In the said application, it was pointed out that the petitioner society was situated at a distance of 15 k.m. from the fishery. The said application of the respondent No. 5 was forwarded by the local MLA to the Fishery Minister who thereafter forwarded the same to the Departmental authority for enquiry. Referring the said observation, Mr. Mahanta submits that there was specific interference in the decision making process in the said NIT by the outside authority and as such while passing the impugned order the petitioner's offer was rejected on some ground which was never disclosed earlier. The ground of rejection was that the experience certificate furnished with the tender was issued by DFDO, Nagaon dated 05.05.2014 in the name of the Secretary but without the post he held in the petitioner society and does not cover all the members of the society in terms of the NTT. Referring to the said certificate issued by the DFDO, Nagaon it is submitted that the certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 was also in the name of Pramod Chandra Das certifying him as an active fisherman. Further the said certificate was an old one issued on 02.07.2005 by the Sub Divisional Fishery Development Officer, Nagaon. So far the certificates are concerned, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are on the same footing. But in the impugned order it was held that the respondent No. 5 with whom the fishery was already settled vide order dated 01.12.2018 was the highest valid bidder and the documents in terms of NTT were found valid during re-scrutiny of the tender documents. But in the impugned order it was held that the respondent No. 5 with whom the fishery was already settled vide order dated 01.12.2018 was the highest valid bidder and the documents in terms of NTT were found valid during re-scrutiny of the tender documents. It was further held that the majority members of the respondent No. 5 are from the SC community and reside within the vicinity of the fishery and compared the members of the petitioner society in the light of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules 1953 (as amended). Reiterating finding of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner failed to submit audited account, he relies Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 wherein it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Mr. Mahanta referring to the statement made in the writ petition that the petitioner submitted up to date audit account for the year 2016-17 and the statement in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the said statement in writ petition was never disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition. Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the impugned order. 7. Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 referring to the order dated 07.05.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 8754/2018 submits that after setting aside and quashing the order dated 01.12.2018 the matter was remanded back to the Fishery Department for passing a fresh order of settlement pursuant to the NIT dated 11.08.2017 keeping in view the discussion and observation therein the order. As per the order dated 01.12.2018 of the respondent No. 2 the reason for rejection of the bid of the petitioner was due to non-furnishing of Bakijai clearance certificate and the neighbourhood issue which as per the said order held that the petitioner's society was situated at a distance of 15 k.m. from the fishery. As per the finding of the court the requirement of the Bakijai clearance certificate and its failure to produce was not fatal, but the settling authority refused to take into consideration of the said certificate even on its submission belatedly before the settling authority. As per the finding of the court the requirement of the Bakijai clearance certificate and its failure to produce was not fatal, but the settling authority refused to take into consideration of the said certificate even on its submission belatedly before the settling authority. Accordingly it was directed to consider the said certificate after the remand. Further the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the issue of neighborhood. The report of the Circle Officer dated 13.03.2018, which was submitted by the respondent No. 5 in respect of the issue of neighbourhood, this court held that the same was highly controversial and unreliable. In terms of the said observation, the respondent authority called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon through the Additional Deputy Commissioner and on receipt of the said report it was held that majority of the members of the respondent No. 5 society reside within the vicinity of the fishery and compared the neighborhood distance of the members of the petitioner society. That is proper. 8. The certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued in the name of individual capacity of Rajendra Hazarika, the Secretary. On the other hand, the certificate which was submitted by the respondent No. 5 was issued in the name of Sri Pramod Chandra Das as the Secretary of the respondent society certifying as fisherman. If both the certificates are compared, the one submitted by the respondent No. 5 supports the activities of the society represented by its Secretary as fisherman and on the other hand the certificate of the petitioner shows that person concerned is the fisherman. The tender condition stipulates furnishing of audited report and balance sheet for the year 2016-17, but the petitioner submitted the same for the year 2015-16. The said short coming was considered while passing the impugned order and that itself cannot be considered as stated by Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel that the respondent authority sat over as the appellate authority of the order passed by this court. This is because of the fact that if any of the documents as required to be submitted are not submitted, that itself is a ground for rejection of the bid of any bidder who failed to submit such document. In support of the said contention Mr. Choudhury relies Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (M/s.) and Anr. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. In support of the said contention Mr. Choudhury relies Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. (M/s.) and Anr. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in : 2014 (2) GLT 811 wherein it was held that non-submission of such document rendered the appellant society invalid. He also relied Central Coalfields Limited and another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) reported in : (2016) 8 SCC 622 . Finally concluding the submission of the Mr. Choudhury it is the contention that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 9. Ms. Barman on the other hand produced the records and supported the argument placed by Mr. Choudhury on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and urged for acceptance of impugned order as proper and valid. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. I have perused the order of remand passed by this court in WP(C) 8754/2018. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow: "24. That apart, record discloses that respondent No. 5 had submitted application dated 13.08.2018 before the Fishery Minister, Govt. of Assam seeking settlement of the fishery. In the said application, it was pointed out that petitioner was situated at a distance of 15 kilometer from the fishery which has uncanny resemblance to the report of the Circle Officer, Raha. This application of respondent No. 5 was forwarded by the local MLA to the Fishery Minister who thereafter forwarded the same to the departmental authorities for enquiry. 25. When settlement of a fishery is being considered by the settling authority through a tender process, it is the settling authority which will consider whether a tender is valid or not valid. Interference of any other authority in the tender process would not be justified. Moreover, when the tender process was in progress, a tenderer could not have sought for interference by any other authority be him political head of the department to intervene in an ongoing tender process. That would negate the very concept of settlement by tender. Any party which tries to influence a tender process by seeking interference of higher authorities or any other authority should be disqualified from the tender process. Such type of application should not be encouraged more so when the law relating to settlement of fishery by the State Government under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules has undergone a change post amendment in 2005. Such type of application should not be encouraged more so when the law relating to settlement of fishery by the State Government under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules has undergone a change post amendment in 2005. There is now no direct settlement by the Government. It is settlement by and through tender process. When there is settlement by and through tender process, only the party which is found to be best should be offered settlement. There cannot be any question of interference by any other authority in the tender process. 26. That being the position, impugned order dated 01.12.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to the Fishery Department, Govt. of Assam for passing a fresh order of settlement pursuant to NTT dated 08.08.2017 keeping in mind the discussions and observations made above. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. During this period of 30 days, whoever is in possession of the fishery shall continue to operate the same on daily basis but the same shall be subject to such fresh order that may be passed by the settling authority." 11. This court while making the said observation took note of the fact that the respondent No. 5 submitted an application dated 13.08.2018 before the Fishery Minister, Government of Assam seeking settlement of the fishery. The application of the respondent No. 5 was forwarded by the local MLA to the Fishery Minister and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Departmental authority for enquiry. In the said application it was pointed out that the petitioner society was situated at a distance of 15 k.m. from the fishery. It was further observed that on careful perusal of the terms and conditions of the NTT it does not disclose any condition stipulating that the settlement would be offered to the bidder who is closest to the fishery or that preference would be given to such bidder. Citing Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 it was held that the Government of Assam is empowered to settle a 60% category fishery with special category of co-operative society etc. consisting of 100% actual fisherman in the neighborhood of the fishery concerned by tender system. Citing Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 it was held that the Government of Assam is empowered to settle a 60% category fishery with special category of co-operative society etc. consisting of 100% actual fisherman in the neighborhood of the fishery concerned by tender system. It further held that the concept of "neighbourhood" is a relative term and is not to be measured in inches, feet etc. The requirement is the nearness of the bidders to the fishery so that the persons who are actual fishermen are able to enjoy the benefit of such fishery. By the application dated 13.08.2018 as hereinabove referred a disqualification was tried to be brought against the petitioner by the respondent No. 5 stating that the petitioner society is situated at a distance of 15 k.m. from the fishery which was forwarded to the departmental authorities for enquiry. This court was critical in the interference of the Fishery Minister and it held that interference by any other authority in the tender process would not be justified. Moreover, when the tender process was in progress, a tenderer could not have sought for interference by any other authority to intervene in an ongoing tender process. Any party who tries to influence a tender process by seeking interference of higher authorities or any other authority should be disqualified from the tender process. Otherwise that would negate the very concept of settlement by tender. 12. The respondent No. 2 against complying the said observation rather directed the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to cause an enquiry in respect of the issue of neighbourhood through the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. This court in the earlier decision held that the said condition of neighborhood was not a criteria in the NIT but even after the said observation and expression of the view that any party who tried to influence the tender process by seeking interference of higher authority should be disqualified, the respondent No. 2 again entered into the said issue of neighbourhood but not complying the observation of disqualification of such tender seeking for such interference by higher authority. This is against the findings in the order of remand and the observation of this court inasmuch as it was a clear and specific finding that the respondent No. 5 cannot be considered at all once it participated in the tender process on its own and the subsequent action shows an agent with influence is acting on its behalf the tender process becomes redundant which was a conscious finding of this court and the consequential finding was to disqualify such party from the tender process. But that was not followed which amounts to further scrutiny of the order of the court by the respondent No. 2 which is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. 13. WP(C) 8754/2018 after it was filed earlier, the facts pleaded therein were crystallized. The parties in the said writ petition exchanged their respective affidavits and the court also perused the records. At the time of hearing nor in the pleadings of any of the parties more specifically the respondent State, did not raise any deficiency in respect of audited account nor experience certificate submitted by the petitioner. The tender evaluation committee made a comparative statement of the bidders who participated in the tender in respect of the said fishery observing non-submission of the Bakijai certificate by the petitioner. The rest of the criteria were found to be in compliance of the tender condition. On those crystallized factual matrix, this court passed the order remanding back to take a decision afresh in the NTT on the basis of the observations made therein. The respondent No. 2 in the impugned order came up with other two deficiencies against the petitioner which were never placed at the time of hearing of WP(C) 8754/2018. It was only in the impugned order stated about such deficiencies. The earlier order was passed with reasons on the basis of the said crystallized facts and the subsequent discovery in respect of the deficiency of the petitioner as pointed out, a duty was cast upon the respondent State to inform this court and take necessary leave to take into consideration such deficiencies. The earlier order was passed with reasons on the basis of the said crystallized facts and the subsequent discovery in respect of the deficiency of the petitioner as pointed out, a duty was cast upon the respondent State to inform this court and take necessary leave to take into consideration such deficiencies. But the action subsequent to passing of the earlier order and that too after the findings and observations on the basis of the crystallized facts the respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate with an intent to stick to its earlier decision ante passing of the order dated 07.05.2019 in WP(C) No. 8754/2018. Here it would be proper to take into consideration the view of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in : AIR 1978 SC 851 which is reproduced hereinbelow: "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observation of Bose J. In Gordhandas Bhanji : AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at P.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 14. From the aforesaid view taken by the Apex Court it is the ratio that when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons subsequently in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. From the aforesaid view taken by the Apex Court it is the ratio that when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein itself and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons subsequently in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. The reasonings given by this court while passing the order in WP(C) 8754/2018 were on the basis of the factual matrix which crystallized once the writ petition was filed. This is because of the fact that public order made by the public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the action and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Thus, in my considered opinion the respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order failed to adhere to the observation made by this court and as a result I am constrained to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 with a direction to take into consideration of the observation made by this court and pass an appropriate order thereby bringing the NIT dated 11.08.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon to its logical conclusion. The exercise shall be carried out and completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. During this period of 30 days, status quo in respect of the possession of the fishery as on date shall be maintained by the parties to this writ petition. This writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No cost. The records produced by the learned Govt. Advocate be returned back.