JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Fishery Department. I have also heard Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. 2. The issue involved in the instant proceedings is as to whether a bidder who was the second highest bidder having withdrawn would be entitled to retract the same and claims the settlement of the fishery in question. 3. The materials on record show that a notice was issued on 30.12.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon for settlement of Fishery in the Sub-Division of Nagaon District as shown in Annexure-I to the said notice. 4. The present writ petition relates to 60% category No. 14/15 Nishari Haria Fishery (Meen Mahal). Pursuant to the said tender process various bids were submitted. The highest bidder was Shri Chandra Kumar Biswas, Secretary, 23 No. Borpani, 58 No. Lawpani Meen Mahal Samabai Samiti and the second highest bidder was the Petitioner. The highest bidder Shri Chandra Kumar Biswas Secretary 23 No. Borpani, 58 No. Lawpani Meen Mahal Samabai Samiti withdrew from the bid. 5. On 31.03.2024, an Executive Meeting of the Petitioner Society was held and it was resolved unanimously to withdraw the bid submitted in the tender process dated 22.01.2024 in respect of 14/15 No. Nishari Haria Fishery (Meen Mahal) as the fishery had dried up due to dry winter season and blockage of all connected rivulets to the fishery for which fish production in the fishery had been considerably declined. It was also further resolved in the said Executive Meeting that an application would be submitted by the Joint Secretary in that regard and one Shri Pradip Biswas, Secretary was directed to do the needful. 6. On the basis of the said Resolution, the Secretary of the Kalaikhua Paschim Khaloi Bhanga Matsyajibi Samabai Samiti Limited i.e. the Petitioner Cooperative Society submitted an application for withdrawal of the bid in respect to the tender process of 14/15 No. Nishari Haria Fishery (Meen Mahal) held on 22.01.2024. 7. 6. On the basis of the said Resolution, the Secretary of the Kalaikhua Paschim Khaloi Bhanga Matsyajibi Samabai Samiti Limited i.e. the Petitioner Cooperative Society submitted an application for withdrawal of the bid in respect to the tender process of 14/15 No. Nishari Haria Fishery (Meen Mahal) held on 22.01.2024. 7. The record further reveals that after almost five months thereafter, the members of the Petitioner Society changed their minds as would appear from the Minutes of another meeting held on 02.09.2024 wherein it was resolved that the Petitioner Society would take the settlement of the 14/15 No. Nishari Haria Fishery (Meen Mahal) which they withdrew earlier. 8. This Court had perused the Resolution so adopted in the meeting dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). A perusal of the said Resolution do not show that the earlier Resolution which was taken on 31.03.2024 was on the basis of any fraud being committed upon the Petitioner Society. Rather, a conjoint reading of the Resolutions which were adopted on 31.03.2024 and 02.09.2024 reveals that the Petitioner Society did not want to take the settlement on the ground that the fishery in question was not viable and subsequently, on 02.09.2024 they have changed their mind. 9. Pursuant to the Resolution dated 05.09.2024, the Secretary of the Petitioner Cooperative Society submitted a communication to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fishery, Nagaon informing that by a meeting dated 02.09.2024, it was again resolved that the Petitioner Society would take the settlement of the Meen Mahal, taking into account the improved ecological condition of the Meen Mahal as well as the non- settlement of the Meen Mahal till date. The Respondent Authorities however did not consider the said request. Rather, on 04.12.2024, the settlement was made in favour of the Respondent No.6. 10. The Petitioner had submitted a representation on 23.12.2024 for reconsideration of the decision to grant the settlement in favour of the Respondent No.6 and to consider granting the settlement in favour of the Petitioner. The said representation having not received any favorable response, the Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 11. This Court vide an order dated 08.01.2025 issued notice and directed the Respondents to file an affidavit. 12. The said representation having not received any favorable response, the Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 11. This Court vide an order dated 08.01.2025 issued notice and directed the Respondents to file an affidavit. 12. The Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was categorically mentioned that the Petitioner's bid was in fact defective on the ground of non-submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate. It was further mentioned that the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam vide the communication dated 02.07.2024 requested the District Commissioner, Nagaon to cause proper inquiry and review the status of each bid by the Tender Committee as well as forward the inquiry report with his views/comments about the valid bids within 15 days positively. Thereupon, the Additional District Commissioner, In-charge Bakijai Branch, Nagaon submitted a report on 19.07.2024 wherein it was reflected that the Respondent No.6 namely Shri Naba Kumar Biswas had a Bakijai proceedings pending of an amount of Rs.15,55,577/-. It was further stated that the Office of the District Commissioner, Nagaon vide a letter dated 11.09.2024 issued a Clearance Certificate informing the closure of the Bakijai proceedings pending against the Respondent No.6. 13. The record also shows that Respondent No.6 has filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein only a preliminary objection was taken as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Rule 11 of the Assam Fishery Rule, 1953 which stipulates the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. 14. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 15. The question as stated above is as to whether the Petitioner having withdrawn from the contest can be permitted again to revive its claim for settlement. It is seen from the conduct of the Petitioner that the Petitioner duly submitted the bid pursuance to the notice dated 22.01.2024. Pursuant thereto, having found itself to be in the second position and the first bidder having withdrawn, the Petitioner Cooperative Society took a conscious decision not to pursue with the tender process on the ground that the fishery in question would not be economically viable. This aspect is apparent from a perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 31.03.2024. Pursuant thereto, having found itself to be in the second position and the first bidder having withdrawn, the Petitioner Cooperative Society took a conscious decision not to pursue with the tender process on the ground that the fishery in question would not be economically viable. This aspect is apparent from a perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 31.03.2024. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner Society changed its mind and by adopting another Resolution dated 02.09.2024 wherein it was resolved that the Petitioner Society would again claim a stake in respect to the settlement. It is the opinion of this Court that such course of action cannot be permitted as the Petitioner Society had withdrawn from the said tender race with open eyes. With the improvement of the condition of the fishery, the Petitioner after withdrawal had no conceivable right to seek settlement again. 16. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.