SUMAN SHYAM,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in both the cases. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.
(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions, may be noticed as follows :- I. The respondent No.4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar District had issued a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) dated 03.07.2014 for settlement of the Brahmaputra Part-II Fishery located in the Sivasagar district for a period of seven years. The Government value of annual revenue for the fishery for the first year was shown as Rs.4,67,500/- in the NIT. The NIT dated 03.07.2014 had inter-alia mentioned that it was a 60% fishery to be settled with societies consisting of 100% Scheduled Caste/Maimal Community of actual fishermen who fulfill the conditions laid down in the NIT. II. In response to the said NIT, as many as 8(eight) bidders including the writ petitioner society herein had submitted their bids. Upon opening the bids, the respondent No.4 had prepared a comparative statement (CS) which was forwarded to the Government for necessary action. As per the comparative statement, one Bipul Hazarika, Secretary of Natun Gatenga Pankajyoti Self Help (SH) Group had offered the highest price of Rs.50,00,599/- whereas the offer made by the writ petitioner for an amount of Rs.33,23,501/- was the second highest. The respondent No. 5 had quoted Rs.12,05,000/- and had emerged as the fifth highest bidder. Despite the fact that the rate quoted by the petitioner was nearly three times the offer made by the respondent No.5, yet, by the impugned order dated 05.11.2014, the respondent authority had settled the aforesaid fishery in favour of respondent No.5 for a yearly revenue of Rs.12,05,000/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner society had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5734/2014 assailing the order of settlement dated 05.11.2014. III. While issuing notice, this court had passed an interim order dated 10.11.2014 in WP(C) No.5734/2014 directing status quo to be maintained as regards the process of settlement of the Brahmaputra Part-II Fishery. In view of the interim order dated 10.11.14, the settlement awarded in favour of the respondent No.5 could not be given effect to as a result of which, the Circle Officer, Sivasagar, had issued an order dated 01.03.2014 permitting the respondent No.5 to temporarily operate the fishery on payment of Rs.1165/- as daily revenue. IV. The aforesaid action on the part of the Circle Officer had prompted the writ petitioner to once again approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.6308/2014 assailing the order of temporary settlement dated 01.03.2014. Taking note of the grievance of the writ petitioner, this Court had passed an order dated 09.12.2015 suspending the operation of the order dated 01.03.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Sivasagar and liberty was given to the settling authority to allow the writ petitioner to operate the fishery on payment of a daily collection of Rs.8000/- which amount was found to be commensurate with the annual price offer of Rs.33,23,501/- made by writ petitioner in the tender process. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was allowed to temporarily operate the fishery on a daily basis, against collection of a toll of Rs.8000/- per day until 18.10.2016 i.e. the date on which the aforesaid settlement was cancelled on the ground of non-payment of the outstanding dues.
(3.) Referring to the documents available on record Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the CS prepared on 06.09.2014, the bid submitted by the writ petitioner was initially found to be technically deficient on three counts, viz., (1) neighbourhood certificate was not given by the Circle Officer; (2) revenue offered is highly exorbitant; and (3) the father of the secretary of the petitioner society has been held to be a defaulter while he was functioning as a member of another society. However, submits Mr. Sarma, a perusal of the impugned order dated 05.11.2014 would go to show that the Government has rejected the bid of the writ petitioner on altogether different grounds. Inviting the attention of the court to the order dated 05.11.2014, Mr Sarma submits that the grounds stated therein mentions that the writ petitioner did not submit fishing experience certificate, balance-sheet and neighbourhood certificate but in reality, two neighbourhood certificates issued by the concerned Gaonburah and the President of the Gaon Panchayat had been submitted by the petitioner along with the tender. That apart, submits Mr. Sarma, a certificate issued by the District Fishery Development Officer (DFDO) Sivasagar, regarding the fishing experience of the members of the petitioner society was also enclosed with the tender document. The learned counsel submits that as per the NIT conditions there was no need for submission of balance-sheet and the fact that Ananda Hazarika, i.e. the father of the secretary of the petitioner society, was adjudged as a defaulter, while he was a member of another society, cannot have any bearing in the present tender process. As such, the bid of the writ petitioner, according to Mr. Sarma, could not have been held to be technically defective.;