JUDGMENT : (LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, J.) Heard Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Fishery Department for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Zomuanpuii, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. The District Commissioner, Dhubri issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 05.08.2024 for settlement of Gr. No. 15/101 Torsa River Fishery in the Dhubri District for a period of 7(seven) years i.e., 2024-2031. The Notice Inviting Tender stipulates that the tender papers shall be accepted up to 02:00 PM on 10.09.2024 and it will be opened at 03:00 PM on the same date. As per Clause-IV of the Notice Inviting Tender, the Tenderers were required to submit the below mentioned documents with the duly filled up prescribed form of tender: “IV. a. Certificate of fishing experience. The certificate should be issued by the DFDO on the basis of professional experience. b. Encumbrance free certificate of Bakijai Proceedings from Deputy Commissioner. (the certificate should be in the name of the samaby samiti/self help group in the district in which the group is registered) c. Certificate of Scheduled Caste/Caste Certificate of Maimal Community and certificate of being 100% actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner. (Samabay samiti/Self help group shall submit the said certificate issued by the ARCS of their concerned district. d. 50 rupees Indian postal order/ bankers cheque/bank draft. e. 15% of minimum fixed revenue for first year is to be paid as security by call deposit by mentioning the name of Samaby Samiti/Self Help Group. f. Registration Certificate of Co-operative Society. (In case of self help group up to date should be submit) g. Pan Card issued in the name of Co-operative Societies/ Group h. Attested photo of authorised person who submit tenders on behalf of society etc. i. Copy of Balance Sheet and audit report accounts in case of co-operative society for last 3 years up to the current financial year j. List of name, address and age of the member of the society, k. Certificate issued by the concerned Revenue Circle regarding neighborhood of the members of the Society.” 3. Pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 05.08.2024, the petitioner’s society along with 2(two) others submitted their tenders. Pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 05.08.2024, the petitioner’s society along with 2(two) others submitted their tenders. After opening the tender documents, the petitioner’s society was found to have submitted their tenders along with all relevant documents with a bid value of Rs.29,47,000/-. The respondent No.4 society was also found to have submitted all relevant documents except the 100% actual Fisherman Certificate with a bid value of Rs.38,60,500/- and the third tenderer i.e., Mala Self Help Group, Golakganj submitted a tender bid value of Rs.21,77,000/-, however the said society submitted only the Caste Certificate and society resolution at the time of submission of tender. Thereafter, the settlement of Gr. No. 15/101 Torsa River Fishery in Dhubri district was made with the respondent No.4 society for 7(seven) years by an order dated 23.12.2024, issued by the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision to grant settlement of the Gr. No. 15/101 Torsa River Fishery, Dhubri district in favour of the respondent No.4, the petitioner’s society is before this Court challenging the order dated 23.12.2024. 5. Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause- IV (c) of the Notice Inviting Tender provides for submission of Certificates of Schedule Caste/Caste Certificate of Maimal Community and Certificate of being 100% Actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner. However, the respondent No.4 had failed to submit the 100% actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner Certificate and therefore, the respondent No.4 society stands technically disqualified. It is submitted that the petitioner’s society had submitted all the documents required in the Notice Inviting Tender and has quoted the second highest bid of Rs.29,47,000/-. Therefore, when the respondent No.4 society despite offering the highest bid of Rs.38,60,500/-, had failed to submit the 100% Fisherman Certificate in the tender and therefore, the bid of the respondent No.4 should have been disqualified. It is also submitted that the Fishery Advisory Committee after making a thorough scrutiny of all the tender papers and taking into consideration the comparative statements offered by the three bidders came to the finding that the respondent No.4 society had not submitted the 100% Actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner Certificate and accordingly, the District Commissioner, Dhubri recommended the name of the petitioner’s society to the Government for settlement of the said fishery by Communication dated 07.10.2024. As the tender submitted by the petitioner’s society was found to be the highest eligible tender confirming to all the requirements in the Notice Inviting Tender, the petitioner’s society was having a legitimate expectation of being settled with the fishery in question. However, the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department/respondent No.3 by the order dated 23.12.2024 settled the Fishery in question in favour of the respondent No.,4 for 7(seven) years at a bid value of Rs.38,60,500/-. He submits that the requirement of submitting 100% Actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner Certificate was an essential qualification and therefore as the respondent No.4 society has failed to submit the same, the bid of the respondent No.4 society should have been disqualified. It is submitted that when the authority issuing the Notice Inviting Tender stipulates certain conditions in the NIT, these conditions are required to be fulfilled and it cannot be deviated. He therefore places reliance in the case of Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. (M/s.) and ANR Vs. Stae of Asam and Ors. reported in 2014 (2) GLT 811 to contend that the submission of 100% Actual Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner Certificate was an essential requirement in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender and non-submission of such documents therefore, rendered the tender of the respondent No.4 society invalid. Therefore, relying in the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. (M/s.) (Supra) he submits that the settlement of the Fishery in question with the respondent No.4 by the order dated 23.12.2024, requires to be set aside and the respondents be directed to settle the fishery in question with the petitioner’s society. 6. Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 society at the very outset submits that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts inasmuch as the petitioner has concealed the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed WP(C)/904/2016 before this Court challenging the settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No.4 for the period 29.06.2017 to 29.06.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.06.2017, wherein, it was held that the price offered by the highest bidder must receive utmost priority and normally be accepted unless there are very good and compelling reasons to deviate therefrom and as long as the authorities provides a level playing field to all the bidders, mere technical defects not effecting the substance of the tender should not be permitted to defeat the underlying objective of the Fishery Rules. He also submits that this Court by the judgment and order dated 09.06.2017, had come to the conclusion that although the petitioners has urged the members of the respondent No.4 society are not 100% fisherman, yet the said plea could not be substantiated by the petitioner by placing relevant materials on record. The learned senior counsel therefore submits that as the petitioner society is approaching this Court with unclean hands, by suppression of material facts, the writ petition therefore deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 also submits that the delay in submitting the 100% Actual Fishermen Certificate for the current period i.e., 2024-2031 had occurred due to the delay caused by the concerned authorities in issuing the same. He submits that the respondent No.4 had applied for the Certificate on 28.08.2024 but it was issued only on 17.09.2024, which was after the date of the opening of the tender bidding process i.e., 10.09.2024. He however submits that the respondent No.4 is a sitting lessee and had previously submitted the 100% Actual Fisherman Certificate and accordingly the respondent No.4 was duly qualified as per the eligibility criteria. The delay caused by the authorities in not issuing the 100% Actual Fisherman Certificate to the respondent No.4 society on time should therefore not result in penalizing the respondent No.4 as the same was an administrative delay which was beyond the control of the respondent No.4 society. He also submits that after receipt of the 100% Actual Fisherman Certificate, the respondent No.4 society had promptly submitted the Certificate, thereby, demonstrating substantial compliance with the tender requirements. As the respondent No.4 was the highest bidder amongst the three bidders, with the bid value of Rs.38,60,500/- for a period of 7(seven) years, the fishery in question was accordingly settled in favour of the respondent No.4 society. As the respondent No.4 was the highest bidder amongst the three bidders, with the bid value of Rs.38,60,500/- for a period of 7(seven) years, the fishery in question was accordingly settled in favour of the respondent No.4 society. The settlement was made after due consideration of the respondent No.4’s compliance with all the terms and conditions of the NIT including the crucial neighborhood issue which is a mandatory requirement under the tender process. He places reliance in the decision of the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sanjit Chandra Das Vs. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & 7 Ors. (WA/56/2023). The learned senior counsel also places reliance in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 671 to contend that the law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporation is essentially a commercial transaction and it can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bonafide reasons if the tender conditions permits such relaxation. Under the circumstances, he submits that the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. P. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Fishery Department has produced the records before this Court. The learned standing counsel, Fishery Department submits that after opening of the tender documents, it was found that the petitioner’s society had submitted all the relevant documents along with a tender bid value of Rs.29,47,000/-. The respondent No.4 society submitted a bid value of Rs.38,60,500/- for 7(seven) years along with all the relevant documents except the 100% Fisherman Certificate. The respondent No.4 society also submitted an application dated 21.10.2024 enclosing the Certificate dated 17.09.2024 issued by the ARCS, Dhubri, stating that the members of the respondent No.4 society are fisherman of SC Community but they are all physically handicapped. The authorities also took into consideration that the respondent No.4 society was the sitting lessee, and accordingly relaxed the requirement of submitting 100% Fisherman Certificate by taking into consideration that under the single bid system non-submission of any relevant documents with the tender can be treated as a curable defect. Further, taking into consideration the revenue to be generated in favour of the Government, the respondent No.4 was settled with the Fishery in question. Further, taking into consideration the revenue to be generated in favour of the Government, the respondent No.4 was settled with the Fishery in question. He also submits that the District Commissioner, Dhubri has no authority to recommend any of the bidders inasmuch as the authority to settle the fishery in question vest with the Government only. 9. I have considered the submission forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. This Court has also considered the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.08.2024, issued by the District Commissioner, Dhubri district for settlement of Gr. No.15/101 Torsa River Fishery of Dhubri district. Clause-IV (c) of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.08.2024 clearly requires the bidders to submit a Certificate of Schedule Caste/Caste Certificate of Maimal Community and Certificate of being 100% actual Fisherman /Fish Farm Owner. The required documents made in Clause-IV were to be submitted along with the Tender papers up to 02:00 PM on 10.09.2024. The NIT further provides that the tender papers would be opened at 03:00 pm on 10.09.2024. 11. On perusal of the records produced by the learned standing counsel, Fishery Department, it is seen that the respondent No.4 society has failed to enclose the Certificate of Schedule Caste/Caste Certificate of Maimal Community and Certificate of being 100% actual Fisherman /Fish Farm Owner as required under Clause- IV(c) of the NIT. 12. Further, the record reveals that the respondent No.4 society has submitted a Certificate dated 17.09.2024 from the ARCS Dhubri, affirming that all members belong to the SC Fisherman Community, although they are physically handicapped. The DFDO, Dhubri in the report dated 29.06.2024, corroborated that the members belong to the SC Community, fishing is their primary occupation and they have ample experience in fishing related activities. The record also reveals that the respondent No.4 society has furnished a Certificate from 2015 issued by the ARCS/DFDO, Dhubri confirming that the members are involved in the fishing and fish trade which formed the basis of the earlier settlement of the fishery with the society. The Society successfully ran the fishery for the full tenure, cleared all revenue and faced no objections from any quarter. The Society successfully ran the fishery for the full tenure, cleared all revenue and faced no objections from any quarter. Therefore, taking into consideration the past records and as the respondent No.4 society has complied with the eligibility criteria of the NIT and has a proven track record of managing the fishery, a decision was therefore taken to recommend the respondent No.4 society for settlement of the fishery in question. 13. The question that arises before this Court is whether the tender of the respondent No.4 society can be accepted for settlement of Gr. No.15/101 Torso River Fishery in Dhubri district despite non-submission of the 100% actual Fisherman Certificate in their tender papers. 14. This Court had taken into consideration the submission made by the learned standing counsel, Fishery Department that the Government had decided to relax the requirement of submitting the 100% Fisherman Certificate taking into consideration that the respondent No.4 society was a sitting lessee and also considering the past records that the respondent No.4 society has proven track record of managing the fishery. Further Clause 23 of the NIT provides that the Government shall have the right to accept or reject any tenders without citing any reasons. 15. In the case of Tata Motors Limited (Supra) the Supreme Court has held as under: “53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. 54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 , that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.” 16. The ratio of the above judgment of the Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove, makes it clear that the interpretation of the terms of the tender documents is best left to the tender authority and the Court normally should follow the principle of restraining itself from interfering with the decision taken by the tender authorities. 17. There is no doubt that the respondent No.4 society was a sitting lessee prior to the issuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 15.08.2024. The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 society that the respondent No.4 society could not submit the 100% Fisherman Certificate due to the fact that the concerned authorities had failed to issue the same on time has also been considered by this Court. What is important in the present case in hand is that all the bidders have been given a common level playing field and the authorities had taken a decision to relax the submission of the 100% Fisherman Certificate in respect of the respondent No.4 society by taking into consideration that the respondent No.4 was a sitting lessee and that it was a single bid system. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decision of the respondents is bona fide. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decision of the respondents is bona fide. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and also taking into consideration the revenue that is to be generated in favour of the Government by settling Gr. No.15/101, Torsa River Fishery, Dhubri district with the respondent No.4, society, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 23.12.2024, issued by the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Fishery Department. 19. Accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Interim order stands vacated. Return the records to the learned standing counsel, Fishery Department.