JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Ullah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. I have also heard Mr. H. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 05.07.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department whereby No.23(A) Barpani/Gabeel/Fakali Fishery in Nagaon District was settled with the respondent No.7 for a period of 7 (seven) years. 3. For deciding as to whether the present case is a fit case for exercising the powers of judicial review, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings. 4. The materials on record shows that on 08.06.2020, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon who is the respondent No.4 herein had issued a tender for settlement of No.23(A) Barpani/Gabeel/Fakali Meen Mahal (hereinafter referred to as “the fishery in question”) for a period of 7 years. The petitioner, respondent No.7 and others had participated in the said tender process. 5. It is relevant to take note of that at the time of submission of bid, the petitioner along with its documents submitted a Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon in the name of its Secretary namely Shri Naba Kumar Biswas. The materials on record shows that one M/s Nagaon District Federation of Cooperative Society Ltd. had quoted the highest bid of Rs.61,00,000/- per annum. The respondent No.7 had quoted Rs.14,00,000/- per annum and the petitioner herein quoted an amount of Rs.8,09,695/- per annum. The Fishery Department of the Government of Assam through the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam passed an order on 05.07.2021 whereby the Fishery in question was settled in favour of the respondent No.7. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.07.2021. 6. The Fishery Department of the Government of Assam through the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam passed an order on 05.07.2021 whereby the Fishery in question was settled in favour of the respondent No.7. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.07.2021. 6. The contention of the petitioner herein is that there was a due of Rs.9,25,740/- in respect to Era Kapili Beel for the year 2018-2019 to 2020-21 in Hojai District of the respondent No.7 society and there was also a Bakijai case registered in respect thereto and in spite of that, the respondent authorities had settled the fishery in favour of the respondent No.7. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the communication dated 23.04.2021 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bakijai Branch, Hojai wherein it was mentioned that the Bakijai case was registered in the office bearing Bakijai Case No.1/2020 against one Chandra Kumar Biswas in respect to Era Kapili Beel with liability for the year 2018-2019 to 2020-2021 for an amount of Rs.9,25,740/-. The petitioner further referred to the communication issued by the Project Manager In-charge, Retired Middle Assam Region, Morigaon wherein a status report was submitted to the Managing Director/OSD of the AFDC wherein it was mentioned that from the Office record, it was found that one Chandra Kumar Biswas was liable to pay Rs.9,25,740/- for the year 2018-2019 to 2020-2021. On the basis of the said, two documents which are enclosed as Annexure-7 and Annexure-10 to the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities could not have settled the fishery in question in favour of the respondent No.7. 8. Per contra, Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Fishery Department submitted that the petitioner in the instant case did not submit a valid tender inasmuch as the Bakijai Certificate so submitted was not of the petitioner society in question but rather the Bakijai Certificate was in respect to one Naba Kumar Biswas who was the Secretary of the petitioner society. She further submitted that after the last date for submission of tender was over, the Bakijai Certificate in respect to the petitioner society was submitted. She further submitted that after the last date for submission of tender was over, the Bakijai Certificate in respect to the petitioner society was submitted. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate therefore submitted that when the petitioner itself did not submit a valid tender, the question of filing the present proceedings questioning the order dated 05.07.2021 is completely misconceived. She further submitted that in respect to the allegations made that the amount of Rs.9,25,740/- was pending dues, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that this very aspect of the matter was duly taken into consideration as would be very much apparent from a perusal of the order dated 05.07.2021 and the authorities concerned have come to a finding that the allegation so made against the respondent No.7 society to be a defaulter of Government revenue was not based on facts. 9. Mr. H. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7 submitted that the petitioner society did not submit a valid tender. Further to that, drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.7, the learned counsel submitted that the only dues which was there in respect to Era Kapili Beel was an amount of Rs.21,000/- which have been duly paid prior to submission of the tender. He therefore submitted that the respondent No.7 society was not a defaulter in payment of Government revenue. In addition to that, the learned counsel submitted that as regards the documents enclosed by the petitioner on which reliance have been placed are fraudulent documents for which due complaints have been filed before the police authorities. 10. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. It appears from Annexure-7 and Annexure-10 to the writ petition on which the counsel for the petitioner had heavily relied upon that the said documents only state that one Chandra Kumar Biswas who is the Secretary of the Respondent No.7 society is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,25,740/-. It appears from Annexure-7 and Annexure-10 to the writ petition on which the counsel for the petitioner had heavily relied upon that the said documents only state that one Chandra Kumar Biswas who is the Secretary of the Respondent No.7 society is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,25,740/-. Without going into the veracity as well as the authenticity of the said documents, it is pertinent to mention that the Bakijai Certificate or the Clearance Certificate which is sought for in the tender proceedings is only in respect to the society who had submitted the tender and not the Secretary and this very aspect of the matter would be apparent from the fact that the petitioner society initially submitted the Bakijai Clearance Certificate of its Secretary i.e. Shri Naba Kumar Biswas and subsequently, after the last date of submission of the bid had submitted the Bakijai Clearance Certificate of the petitioner society. 11. This Court further takes note of the order which have been passed on 05.07.2021 and from the said order, it is apparent that the authorities concerned have duly looked into the aspect pertaining to the allegations made by the petitioner and after verification found that the respondent No.7 was not a defaulter of the Government revenue. This Court further takes note of that the respondent No.7’s bid was much higher than that of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the question of exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. No costs. 13. Interim orders passed if any, stands vacated.