JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. MU Mondal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. AK Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the BTC. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 for settlement of 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district and upon cancellation of the said tender process going ahead with a fresh tender process, without proper publication. 3. The facts as it appears from the materials on record is that on 24.03.2025, the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fishery Department BTC, Kokrajhar had issued a notice inviting tender for settlement of various fisheries including 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district for a period of 3(three) years. The petitioner had participated in the said Tender process along with various other bidders. The said tender was opened on 24.03.2025 and out of the 8 bidders, 5 bids were found to be valid. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the highest eligible bidder. Be that as it may, a corrigendum was issued on 25.03.2025, wherein the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 was cancelled due to some administrative reasons by the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fisheries Department, BTC Kokrajhar. Subsequent, thereto, it is the further case of the petitioner that another Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 05.05.2025 by the Joint Director-cum-CHD Fisheries Department for settlement of various fisheries including 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district, fixing the tender value at Rs.1,70,000/- with the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025. As there was no wide publication of the said Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner had no notice about the same and it was only on the basis of an information divulged under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner could come to learn about the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025. The petitioner also came to learn that on 07.07.2025, the respondent No.6 was settled with the said fishery at Rs.1,70,000/- for the purpose of catching fish to be conducted on payment of annual rent and that too, when the said private respondent No.6 did not participate in the earlier tender process. 5. The petitioner also came to learn that on 07.07.2025, the respondent No.6 was settled with the said fishery at Rs.1,70,000/- for the purpose of catching fish to be conducted on payment of annual rent and that too, when the said private respondent No.6 did not participate in the earlier tender process. 5. Under such circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier tender process by Corrigendum dated 02.05.2025 as well as initiation of a fresh Tender process, that too, by not publishing the Tender Notice in the manner in which it ought to have been published and thereupon settling the said fishery in favour of the respondent No.6 at a rate much lower than the rate quoted by the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 6. The record reveals that this Court by an order dated 11.08.2025 issued notice. However, no interim order was passed on the said date with an observation that this Court may consider passing of an interim order after the stand of the respondents is brought on record. 7. Pursuant thereto, this Court vide an order dated 18.11.2025, taking into account the materials placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel of the BTC and finding that the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025 was not widely circulated, stayed the settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 till today. 8. Today, Mr. AK Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel of the BTC appeared and placed before this Court an instruction dated 22.11.2025. The said instruction(s) is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. A perusal of the said instruction(s) reveals that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 (sic), it was opened on 24.04.2025 and the highest bid value obtained was Rs.7,10,000/- and the lowest bid value was Rs.1,60,000/-. The petitioner was the fourth highest bidder. It was further mentioned that taking into account the comparative statement, the BTC authorities were of the opinion that the highest bid amount was influenced by some other motive. Considering the same, the Corrigendum dated 02.05.2055 was issued thereby canceling the said Tender process and going ahead with a fresh tender process. 9. The petitioner was the fourth highest bidder. It was further mentioned that taking into account the comparative statement, the BTC authorities were of the opinion that the highest bid amount was influenced by some other motive. Considering the same, the Corrigendum dated 02.05.2055 was issued thereby canceling the said Tender process and going ahead with a fresh tender process. 9. It is also mentioned that the BTC authorities had requested the concerned Department to publish the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025 at least in one Assamese daily Newspaper and one Bodo daily Newspaper. But it was published only in one Bodo daily Newspaper i.e. HayenniRadab and pursuant thereto only three bidders participated and the respondent No.6 having been found to be the highest bidder, the settlement of the fishery, in question, was made in favour of the respondent No.6. 10. This Court had duly taken note of the comparative statement enclosed to the instructions so placed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel of the BTC. It surprises this Court that when the government value was fixed at Rs.1,70,000/- only the respondent No.6 had quoted Rs.1,70,000/-, whereas the other two bidders have quoted less than that. 11. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties were duly heard who made submissions in tune with the materials on record as already discussed hereinabove. 12. The question, therefore, arises before this Court is as to whether any interference is called for in the present facts and circumstances of the instant case to the settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6. 13. From the instructions(s) which has been placed before this Court by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, BTC, it appears that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025, as many as, 8(eight) bidders have participated seeking settlement of the fishery in question. Out of the said bids so submitted, two bids were submitted which were above Rs.6,00,000/-, three bids were in the range of Rs.2,50,000/- and two bids were Rs.1,70,000/- and below. 14. The materials on record further show that the previous settlement value was Rs.1,70,000/-. Out of the said bids so submitted, two bids were submitted which were above Rs.6,00,000/-, three bids were in the range of Rs.2,50,000/- and two bids were Rs.1,70,000/- and below. 14. The materials on record further show that the previous settlement value was Rs.1,70,000/-. The decision on the part of the respondent authorities to cancel the earlier tender process taking into account that the highest bidder had quoted an exorbitant rate cannot be faulted with as well as cannot also be looked into in a proceedings, wherein the petitioner is not the highest bidder, but rather the fourth highest bidder. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the Corrigendum published on 02.05.2025 thereby cancelling the Tender process initiated by the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025. 16. The next aspect which arises is as to whether this Court should interfere with the Tender process initiated by the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025. It is the very stand of the respondent authorities that they wanted wider participation and therefore, they had requested the authorities concerned to publish the Notice Inviting Tender in two newspapers i.e. one in Assamese and the other in the Bodo language. However, it surprises this Court that without the publication being carried out in the Assamese daily Newspaper as to why on the basis of a publication only carried out in the Bodo daily Newspaper, the respondent authorities proceeded with the Tender process. The said aspect smacks of unfairness and lack of transparency. 17. Further to that, it is also surprising to note that in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025, it was categorically mentioned that the tender value of the fishery in question was Rs.1,70,000/- with enhancement of Revenue of 10% per month. The effect of the lack of proper circulation of the Notice Inviting Tender is reflected in the comparative statement, wherein the respondent No.6 had quoted Rs.1,70,000/- and the other two bidders who participated quoted even less than the Tender value. The same, therefore, do not show that it is a case of transparency and fairness demonstrated by the respondent authorities in conducting the settlement of the fishery in question, more so, when the basic idea of Tenders of present time is to get the best revenue for the benefit of the State. The same, therefore, do not show that it is a case of transparency and fairness demonstrated by the respondent authorities in conducting the settlement of the fishery in question, more so, when the basic idea of Tenders of present time is to get the best revenue for the benefit of the State. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i). This Court is not interfering with the cancellation of the tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.03.2025 vide the Corrigendum dated 02.05.2025. (ii). This Court interferes with the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.05.2025 as well as the consequential actions on the part of the BTC authorities to settle the fishery in question i.e. 6/75 Bhelakoba Group Fisheries of Kokrajhar district in favour of the respondent No.6 by the order dated 07.07.2025. (iii) Liberty is given to the respondent authorities to take recourse to a fresh Tender process by giving wide circulation and if the respondent authorities is of the opinion that there is a requirement of inserting a maximum viable rate, the same also be incorporated in the fresh Tender. 18. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.