JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Railways and Mr. H.R. Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The materials on record would show that on 24.12.2002, the petitioner herein was given the license of Railway ponds/ditches 2 (two) numbers at Golakganj in between TP/Km. 46/13-16 measuring in area of 151.28 M X 74.25 M and 82.35 M X 76.25 M i.e. as per plan totaling to 13.31 Bighas for a period of two years. On the basis of various litigations carried out, the petitioner for the last 23 (twenty three) years had been in occupation of the said ponds/ditches. 3. On 17.01.2025, in view of the dismissal of RSA No. 143/2014, the respondent Railways had issued an Auction Notice for the 2 (two) numbers of ponds/ditches for a period of 2 (two) years. The petitioner herein participated in the said auction process along with various other bidders including the respondent No. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not object to the Auction Notice, rather, participated in the same. The bids were opened at 15.00 hours on 24.01.2025 and neither the petitioner nor any other bidder claimed or produced any document that they belong to the Fisherman’s Cooperative Society or had mentioned any registration number in their bids. The bid submitted by the respondent No. 5 was found to be the highest and the petitioner on coming to learn, rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. This Court vide an order dated 04.04.2025 issued notice and in the meantime directions were issued to the respondent Railways not to finalize the Auction Notice dated 17.01.2025. The interim order has subsequently been continued from time to time. 5. The respondent Railways had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein they have categorically mentioned that the petitioner was allotted 2 (two) numbers of ponds/ditches for fishing purpose at Golakganj near the shed in the year 2002 and on account of the matter being sub-judice, no steps were taken for re-auctioning the same. However, as no order was produced permitting the petitioners to run the said ponds/ditches, the Auction Notice dated 17.01.2025 was issued. However, as no order was produced permitting the petitioners to run the said ponds/ditches, the Auction Notice dated 17.01.2025 was issued. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner never raised any objection during the auction process, rather, the petitioner participated in the said auction process. It was also stated that the petitioner never mentioned that it was a Fishermen’s Cooperative Society nor provided any registration number. 6. The respondent No. 5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was stated that the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 5 and 3 (three) others bidders participated in the open auction process. The respondent No. 5 quoted a bid value of Rs. 1,92,251/-. On the other hand, the petitioner had quoted a bid value of Rs. 1,58,416/-. The difference of the bid value of the petitioner with that of the respondent No. 5 was Rs. 33,835/-. It was further mentioned that the question of giving preference to a Society as per the Rule referred to by the writ petitioner relates to a situation of pre- tender stage, that too, only first preference is given to the Railway Fishermen Society and then next preference is to be given to the other Fishermen Society. Further to that, it was mentioned that nowhere there were any Rules placed by the petitioner that irrespective of the bid value offered by the tenderers, the Pond is required to be settled with the Society by ignoring the highest bidder. It was mentioned that the said Rule being Rule 712 of the Indian Railway Works Manual , 2000 relates to preference only and preference means when other things are equal between the two, then the question of preference would come. It was further mentioned that there was no illegality in the said auction process and also declaring that the respondent No. 5 was the highest valid bidder. The respondent No. 5 further stated that pursuant to the selection, the respondent No. 5 had already deposited the full bid amount along with 18% GST on 24.01.2025 and in the said receipt, the period of the license has been also mentioned. However, on account of the pendency of the present proceedings, the license had not been issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, for which, the respondent No. 5 is unable to carry out any fishing activities. 7. However, on account of the pendency of the present proceedings, the license had not been issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, for which, the respondent No. 5 is unable to carry out any fishing activities. 7. The petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply against the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 wherein the petitioner questioned the locus of the respondent No. 5 to participate in the said auction process inasmuch as the said auction notice which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is not an open public notice. Further to that, it was also mentioned that being the highest bidder cannot be the sole criterion. 8. In the affidavit-in-reply filed against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it was the case of the petitioner that the Respondent Authorities were very much aware that the petitioner herein was a Fisherman Cooperative Society inasmuch as the Respondent Authorities had earlier granted license/lease vide order No. 355/Auction/Fishing/W-4/Pt.VI dated 24.12.2002. It was also mentioned that the bid was in such a format where there was no scope of mentioning the registration number of the petitioner society. 9. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 10. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has approached this Court at a stage when the petitioner had come to learn that the petitioner is not likely to be successful in the auction process. A perusal of the Auction Notice enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition categorically mentions that the fishery in question is auctioned for a period of 2 (two) years notifying all intending auctioneers to submit their rate in the schedule which will be supplied from the Assistant Divisional Engineer/FKM at NBQ Office, Post and District-Kokrajhar. The petitioner has not challenged the said Auction Notice, rather, the petitioner had participated in the said auction process. Under such circumstances, the question of the petitioner now falling back upon Rule 712 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000 does not arise. 11. The petitioner has not challenged the said Auction Notice, rather, the petitioner had participated in the said auction process. Under such circumstances, the question of the petitioner now falling back upon Rule 712 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000 does not arise. 11. This Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that a perusal of the relevant portion of Rule 712 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000 shows that first preference would be given to the Fishermen’s Cooperative Society formed by the Railwaymen and if no such society exists, the second preference should be given to the other Fishermen’s Cooperative Societies and if no such society exists, it may be let out to others by open public auction or open tender. The petitioner neither raised its claim on the basis of Rule 712 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000 during the auction process nor given any details that the petitioner was a registered Fisherman Cooperative Society and had a registration number allocated. Therefore, on the basis thereof, the petitioner in the opinion of this Court cannot claim any right on the basis of Rule 712 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000. 12. During the course of dictating the instant judgment, Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Clause C of the Auction Notice, which being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ Terms And Condition (a)........... (b)........... (c) The license is only for 2 years and allotted to highest bidder duly giving first right of refusal to the present occupant. The commencing date for further period of 2 years will consider from signing date of agreement.” 13. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in terms with the above quoted Clause, the license is to be issued for a period of 2 (two) years and allotted to the highest bidder duly giving the first right of refusal to the present occupant. He therefore submitted that an option has to be given to the petitioner who is the present occupant. 14. It is the opinion of this Court that the said plea so raised is not a plea taken in the present writ petition as well as in the affidavits so filed. He therefore submitted that an option has to be given to the petitioner who is the present occupant. 14. It is the opinion of this Court that the said plea so raised is not a plea taken in the present writ petition as well as in the affidavits so filed. Be that as it may, a reading of Clause C of the Auction Notice, in the opinion of this Court would mean that the license which is being given would be in pursuance to the said auction proceedings for a period of 2 (two) years and would be allotted to the highest bidder. This highest bidder who is being granted the license would also be given a first right of refusal. This aspect would be further clear in the second sentence of Clause C of the Auction Notice wherein reference is made to the commencing date for a further period of 2 (two) years. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the plea so raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for interference with the impugned actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities, for which, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.