High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2661/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER All these three writ petitions pertain to settlement of No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputr a Fishery which has been settled with the common Respondent in all the writ peti tions viz., M/S. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd, hence, the writ petit ions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. A dispute has been raised by the said Respondent as to the actual date of issuan ce of the settlement order. While the writ petitioners have annexed a copy of th e settlement order No. FISH 104/91/1007 dated 27th April, 2010, both the State a nd private Respondent have claimed the settlement order to have been issued on 2 8th April, 2010. A copy of the said settlement order dated 28th April, 2010 has also been produced as Annexure- 5 to the Affidavit-in-Opposition of Respondent N o. 4 i.e. M/S Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. in W.P.(C) No. 2569/2010. A perusal of the original records produced by the Government Advocate, Assam on behalf of the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam also shows that the settlement order was in fact issued on 28th April, 2010 while the copy of the s o called order dated 27th April, 2010 annexed to the writ petitions is only a dr aft order which was never issued. However, this issue need not detain the court to adjudicate the dispute raised in the writ petitions. 2. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Banik, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2569/10, Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) N o. 2661/10 and Mr. MK Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3921/10. I hav e also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. M. Nath, learned coun sel appearing for the private respondent M/S. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samit y Ltd. which has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 and Mr. RK Bora, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in all
Decision
the writ petitions. 3. By the settlement order contained in Memo No.FISH 104/91/1007 dated 28.4 .2010, the private Respondent M/S Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. has b een settled with No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery, Darrang District in its Bid value of Rs.1,14,80,000/- for 7 (seven) years w.e.f. the date of delivery of pos session of the fishery. This settlement order is a sequel to the notice inviting tender issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang vide his Memo No. DRF-7/97/54 3 dated 6.11.2009. 4. The individual case of the three writ petitioners and the contra case of the respondents can be summarized as under: In W.P.(C) No. 2569/2010: - 5. Petitioner’s case is that pursuant to the tender notice dated 6.11.2009 for settlement of No.1, Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery of Darrang district, petitio ner Society had submitted tender for an amount of Rs.1,43,86,837/- for a period of 7 (seven) years. The tender submitted by the petitioner was the highest among st the tenderers, four in number. However, rejecting the tender of the petitione r on wholly untenable grounds, settled the fishery with the respondent No.4 soci ety by order dated 27.4.2010 at the bid value of Rs.1,14,80,000/- for a period o f 7 years with effect from the date of delivery of possession of the fishery. 6. The writ petitioner M/S Maa Mahalaxmi Self Help Group had raised the con troversy regarding Maimal status of the Respondent No. 4 in paragraph 8 of the w rit petition, but this point was not pressed by Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior co unsel. 7. It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that the settlement order wrongly mentions that the members of the writ petitioner are not within the are a of operation of fishery and that the address of 2 (two) of its members viz Sri Banai Das and Sri Krishna Ch Malo do not tally with the addresses of the Regist ration Certificate of the said Self Help Group and accordingly, the settlement o rder suffers from perversity. Additionally, it is also argued that the rejection of the tender of the writ petitioner on the ground of their having not furnishe d the experience certificates is also illegal rendering the settlement order lia ble to be quashed. 8. The Fishery Department of the Government of Assam has filed its Affidavi t-in-Opposition through its Deputy Secretary inter alia stating that the writ pe titioner Self Help Group is composed of 12 (twelve) members, out of whom the add resses of 2 (two) members viz., Sri Banai Das and Sri Krishna Ch Malo do not tal ly with their respective addresses mentioned in the Registration Certificate of the said Self Help Group and those appearing in the relevant certificates append ed to the tender papers submitted in connection with the settlement operation, w hich reveals that all members of the Self Help Group are not within the area of operation of the fishery in question, i.e. Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery under Dar rang district. It is the further case of the settling authority that the respond ent No.4, i.e. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. has been found to be con sisting of cent percent actual fishermen belonging to Maimal community and the m embers of the society are residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery as is app arent from the records submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang. The Govern ment Affidavit also contains the letters dated 27.03.1979 (Annexure-III) and 19. 11.2009 (Annexure-IV) issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societie s, Darrang, Mangaldai which certify that the members of the M/S. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. are inhabitants of the bank of Brahmaputra river and a ctual fishermen by profession. This affidavit also contains a letter dated 28.04 .2006 (Annexure-V) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai address ed to the Fishery Department, Government of Assam inter alia certifying that the members of M/S. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. belong to Maimal Commu nity of erstwhile Cachar district. The Report of the Circle Officer, Mangaldai d ated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-VI) certifies that the members of this Samiti are resi ding in the bank of No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Meen Mahal. It is accordingly argu ed by the Government Advocate that on a comparative assessment of the bids of th e writ petitioner and the Respondent No. 4, the tender of Respondent No. 4 was f ound to be of better merit in terms of parameters required under law. Thus the s ettlement order issued in favour of the Respondent No. 4 M/S. Baghpori Maimal Me en Samabai Samity Ltd. was issued in valid exercise of powers by authority empow ered under law. The same Affidavit-in-Opposition has been pressed by the Governm ent Advocate as the stand of the settling authority in the remaining 2(two) writ petitions viz., W.P.(C) No. 2661/10 and W.P.(C) No. 3921/10. The respondent No.4, M/s. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. has f 9. iled its affidavit-in-opposition disclosing that the status of this Society as r egards its eligibility in terms of formation with actual fishermen and area of o peration being in the neighbourhood of the No.1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery had been subject matter of previous litigations vide Civil Rule Nos. 2093 of 1995 an d 2161 of 1995 which was decided by a judgment and order dated 9.08.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court inter alia holding that the members of M/S. Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. (Respondent No. 5 therein) belong to Maimal Community of Cachar district who had been permanently residing in Dar rang District and thus cannot be deprived from the benefit of Proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules which contain provision for direct settlement of a G overnment fishery of 60% category with duly composed Co-operative Society of act ual fishermen categorized under the Rules residing in the neighbourhood of the f ishery in question. It is also recorded in the said judgment that Government had come to a finding that the No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery falls within the a rea of operation of the M/S Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd.. However, t he settlement order challenged in the aforesaid proceedings was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this court remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the settling authority on the ground that the relevant considerations for ex ercise of powers for giving a direct settlement of fishery under the said provis o of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules was not gone into by the settling author ity. The judgment of the learned Single Judge having been carried to Writ Appeal s, the Division Bench of this court inter alia held that the Maimal Community of Cachar district being the members of M/S Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Lt d. cannot claim or carry the privileges of preferential settlement of fishery av ailable to Maimal Community of Cachar outside the district of Cachar. This appel late judgment of the Division Bench of this Court were challenged before the Hon ’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.4672-74 of 1998. By judgment dat ed 30th March, 1999 while disposing the writ appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia set aside the order passed by the Division Bench and restored the jud gment and order of the learned Single Judge inter alia holding as follows:- (cid:28) & & &The fact that the appellant society consists of members belonging to Maimal Community of the Cachar District is not in dispute. Their case is that their mem bers belong to the Maimal Community of the Cachar District and they fall into a class which is described in the relevant rules and thus become entitled to seek the registered fishery. The learned Single Judge did not indulge in any exercise in semantics as to the expression (cid:28)Maimal Community of Cachar District (cid:29) and as to whether the operation of the said rule is confined only to Cachar District or outside but on the basis that the Maimal Community of the Cachar District were members of the society and the object of the rule being to help the backward cla sses they were entitled to the same even though such persons may be residing out side the district. The Division Bench of the High Court laid emphasis on the exp ression (cid:28)of the Cachar District (cid:29) and, therefore, took the view that they must be long to the Maimal Community and must reside within the district to become entit led to the benefit of the rule. Now we may advert to the policy adopted by the G overnment of Assam in the matter of backward classes in the communication No. TA D/DC/268/75/37 dated November, 27, 1975. We may notice that there are certain co mmunities which are recognised only in a particular area geographically. In resp ect of others, all that is stated is (cid:28)Kumar Rudra Paul of Cachar (cid:29) while in case of Rajbonshi or Koch (Koch of Goalpara and Garo Hills only), specific mention is made as confined to a particular area. When area of operation of a notification is not confined to any particular geographical region the areas referring to pe rsons belonging to a community of a particular district would only be the words of description and in such cases we will have to take the term (cid:28)of (cid:29) as denoting origin or descent of the persons belonging to a particular community of an area. Ultimately it means that they hail from a particular area and recognizes them b elonging to that particular district and no more. Therefore, the view taken by t he learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to us to be more reasonable an d appropriate than the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Durin g pendency of the matter before the competent authority the benefit of interim o rder granted by this Court shall continue until disposal of the matter. (cid:29) 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 thus submitted that the vi llages forming the area of the Respondent Society being situated within 3 Km - 0 Km of the bank of the fishery in question it is very much within the neighbourh ood of the fishery; the members of the Writ Petitioner Self Help Group do not re side within the neighbourhood of the fishery and in fact at least the addresses of 2 (two) of its members viz., Sri Banai Das and Sri Krishna Ch Malo are appare ntly self contradictory rendering the tender of the writ petitioner liable to be rejected. It is also the specific pleaded case of the Respondent No. 4 that at least 5 (five) members out of the total number of 12 (twelve) members of the Wri t Petitioner Self Help Group, viz., Sri Banai Das, Sri Krishna Chandra Malo, Sri Manoranjan Das, Sri Sanjit Das and Sri Gauranga Das reside at distances ranging from 20 - 5 Kms away from the fishery in question thereby bringing home the poi nt that the Writ Petitioner Self Help Group cannot be rated to be in the neighbo urhood of the fishery. W.P.(C) 2661/2010: - 11. The Writ Petitioner herein describes itself as a registered Co-operative Society of indigenous fishermen of Darrang District. It has submitted its tende r documents in pursuant to the tender notice having fulfilled all eligibility cr iteria. However, it is specifically admitted in the writ petition that there was shortfall in depositing the requisite proportionate amount as call deposit whil e depositing its tender and to that effect a prayer was made by the writ petitio ner society before the Deputy Commissioner with an undertaking that the deficit will be deposited if the tender of the Petitioner was accepted. There is also so me confusion regarding the amount quoted by the Writ Petitioner Society as its b id and the same is apparent from the Comparative Statement of the tenders submit ted by various tenderers annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition; relevant po rtion whereof is quoted as under (cid:28)Deposited Rs.93,000.00. Though has written Rs. Sixteen lakhs three thousand but in figure has written Rs.1,63,000.00 (cid:29). It is argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 Society with whom the fishery has been settled by the order under challenge is not forme d with cent percent actual fishermen residing in the neighbourhood of the fisher y concerned inasmuch as it’s Secretary Md. Chand Mahmud Ahmed’s identity as a me mber of the ’Maimol Community is not substantiated with the requisite certificat e of belonging to the Maimol Community.’ That apart it is also alleged that the certificates of some members of the Respondent No. 4 Society have not been issue d by the authorities of Cachar district where the Maimal Community originally be longs but has been issued by the office bearers of Other Backward Classes Associ ation of Mangaldai. In addition it is also pleaded that the Respondent No. 4 soc iety has not submitted its audited Balance Sheet for the year 2008-09 which is a pparent on the face of the Comparative Chart (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). It is argued that non-consideration of these infirmities in the tender of the Re spondent No. 4 has rendered the impugned order of settlement illegal. 12. Per contra it is argued on the behalf of the Settlement holder, Responde nt No. 4 that the tender of the writ petitioner itself being admittedly defectiv e, the Writ Petitioner is not within the zone of consideration for any comparati ve assessment of its tender with that of the Respondent No. 4. Hence, being bere ft of any case for violation of any of its existing enforceable rights, the writ petitioner does not have any prima facie case. It is further argued that the Ma imal status of the writ petitioner society as well as all its constituent member s have been finally decided by the Apex Court and this issue cannot be reagitate d again and again by pressing a letter dated 16.06.2006 issued by the Deputy sec retary, Fishery Department to the Deputy Commissioner Darrang inter alia stating that no complaint should be entertained regarding the eligibility of Maimal Com munity in Darrang District in view of the position having been settled by the Ho n’ble Apex Court in respect of the Respondent No. 4 Society (Annexure 2 to the A ffidavit-in-Opposition) and thus, the issue should be treated to be barred by th e Principle of Constructive Res-judicata. It is also argued that submission of A udited Balance Sheet being not a prerequisite condition either under the relevan t Rules or the Notice Inviting Tender, non-submission of the same cannot render the tender of the Respondent No.4 defective. W.P.(C) No. 3921/2010: - 13. The Petitioner Society claiming to be a duly constituted Co-operative So ciety composed of cent percent actual fishermen community members living in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question has challenged the settlement made in f avour of Respondent No. 4 Society on the ground that the members of the Responde nt No. 4 society do not belong to Maimal Community as is apparent from a report of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Darrang, Mangaldai. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 4 having not submitted its Balance Sheet, as is apparent on the face of the Comparative Statement, it was not entitled to be con sidered for settlement. Finally, the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid on the gr ound of its members having not residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery in q uestion is based on erroneous finding. The Respondent No. 4 counters the claim of the Writ Petitioner by pleadi 14. ng that the Maimal Status of the members of the Respondent No. 4 Society cannot be undone on the basis of the report of the Project Director, District Rural Dev elopment Agency, more so, after the same has been finally settled by the Apex Co urt. It is further averred that since 1995 till as of date the fishery is being continuously settled with the Respondent No. 4 society time and again by various orders of the Fishery Department, Government of Assam taking into account the n eighbourhood status of the members of the respondent No. 4 Society vis-à-vis the location of the fishery in question which is the main course of river Brahmaput ra flowing through a part of Darrang district. The course of the river remaining the same and the same very villages which form the area of operation of the Res pondent No. 4 Society wherein its constituent members reside, the question of ne ighbourhood status of the Respondent No. 4 in respect of the same fishery is not liable to be opened up for fresh consideration. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record the Court now proceeds to examine the riva l contentions raised by the parties on the following cardinal issues :- (I) Whether the settlement order issued in favour of the Respondent No. 4 So ciety is liable to be interfered with on any of the parameters laid down by the relevant Rules and/or the tender conditions? (II) ng enforceable legal rights of the Writ Petitioners ? (III) Whether the decision making process culminating in the issue of the sett lement order under challenge is vitiated by noncompliance of any mandates of law Whether the settlement order under challenge infringes any of the existi ? 16. Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 originally provided for settlem ent of fisheries by way of sale by the State Government with the proviso that St ate Government might introduce tender system of settelemt in place of sale by au ction system whenever it was considered necessary. This Rule was subsequently am ended by providing that except those referred to in Rule 8(b) of the Rules, all registered fisheries shall be settled under tender system of sale in place of sa le by auction. An important amendment was brought in by way of notification date d 5th June, 1976 to the said Rules adding a proviso to Rule 12 providing that th e State Government might settle any registered fishery otherwise than under tend er system with Fishery Co-operative Society formed with 100 percent actual fishe rmen of fishing population in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned and bel onging to Scheduled Caste of the State or Maimal Community of the Cachar distric t at a revenue calculated and for a period decided by the State Government from time to time. This amendment introduced a major shift in the State Policy seekin g to reach the benefit of fishery settlement and operation directly to the fishe rmen by negating the role of middlemen. Validity of this new proviso having been challenged, a full bench of this court had upheld the same in the celebrated ju dgment rendered in the case of Arabinda Das Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1 981(Gau) 18 : (1982) 1 GLR 280. The terms ’area of operation’ and ’neighbourhood ’ as well as the ambit of ’100 percent actual fishermen’ mentioned in the afores aid proviso to Rule 12 had undergone numerous judicial interpretations of this c ourt. 17. However, Rule 12 has since been subjected to another amendment which is contained in Notification No. FISH.2/2000/171 dated 31.03.2005, published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 8.04.2005. By the said Notification containin g the Assam Fishery (Amendment) Rules, 2005 which has come into force w.e.f. the date of Gazette publication, the following Proviso has been introduced by way o f the Amending Act substituting the hitherto existing Proviso :- (cid:28)Provided that the Government shall settle a 60% category fishery with special c ategory of co-operative Societies, Non-Government Organisations and Self Help Gr oups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery con cerned by the Tender System. (cid:29) Explanation 1 :- For the purpose of this rule, the words (cid:28)special category (cid:29) mean s and includes the Co-operative Societies, Self-Help Groups, Non-Governmental Or ganisations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Scheduled caste community or Maimal community of erstwhile Cachar district, who can not participate in th e competitive bidding because of poor financial condition due to famine, flood, draught, epidemic of any other circumstances which are beyond control of the soc iety, non-Governmental Organisations or Self Help Groups as the case may be; Explanation 2 :- For the purpose of this rule (cid:28)a 60% category fishery (cid:29) means 60% of registered fisheries available in a Civil Sub-Division eligible for settleme nt in a particular year. (cid:29) The settlement order under challenge has been made under the aforesaid p 18. roviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, as amended by the aforesaid Amendm ent Rules of 2005. Under this new proviso the zone of consideration for settleme nt of 60% category fishery has been enlarged thereby including Non-Governmental Organisations and Self Help Groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen along wit h the special category Co-operative Societies. In terms of the explanation appen ded to the proviso, a special category co-operative society will mean fishery Co -operative Society. Further, while three categories of contenders can now partic ipate in the tender process for settlement of a 60% category fishery, all these three categories viz., (i) Fishery Co-operative Society, (ii) Non-Governmental O rganisations and (iii) Self Help Groups must consist of cent percent actual fish ermen of Scheduled Caste Community or Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar distr ict residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. However, the last se ntence of Explanation 1 appended to the proviso starting with the words (cid:28)Who can not participate in competitive bidding &.. (cid:29) does not bear meaning if separated fr om the first sentence of the Explanation 1. Hence, the entire Explanation 1 read harmoniously tends to depict the legislative intent of adding the qualifying cr iteria mentioned in the second sentence for treating the Co-operative Societies, Self Help Groups and Non-Governmental Organisations as (cid:28)Special Category (cid:29) in ex clusion of other contenders. Thus while the principal Rule 12 provides for power to the Government for settlement of fisheries by tender system without creating any class of tenderers, acting under the special power provided under the provi so, a (cid:28)Special Category (cid:29) has been created for limiting the zone of consideration for settlement of 60% category fishery by tender system. The common ground of attack in all the three writ petitions is centered 19. around the actual fishermen status of the Respondent No. 4 society along with th e question whether its constituents are residing in the neighbourhood of the fis hery in question namely No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery. The eligibility of t he Maimals of erstwhile Cachar district to participate in a settlement process f or fishery outside the geographical boundary of the erstwhile Cachar district, m ore specifically in Darrang district of Assam, is not open for fresh adjudicatio n, inasmuch as, this dispute has already been finally resolved by the judgment o f the Apex Court (supra) entitling the Respondent No. 4 society being composed o f cent percent actual fishermen belonging to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cacha r district to be entitled for consideration of settlement of the same very No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery. A fresh dispute is sought to be raised now allegin g the Secretary of the said Society is not an actual fisherman or a member of Ma imal Community. Resort is also taken to a report of the Project Director, Distri ct Rural Development Agency dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure 4 in W.P.(C) No.3921 of 2 010). While the pointed allegation against the Caste status of the Secretary of the Respondent No. 4 society is bereft of any supporting material whatsoever, th e report of the Project Director, without questioning its sanctity whatsoever, e ven read as a whole do not lay any credence to the attack on the type of composi tion of the membership of Respondent No. 4 Society so as to prima facie invalida te its right to participate in the tender process. For a ready reference, the fi ndings recorded by the Project Director in the concluding paragraphs of his repo rt can be beneficially quoted hereunder :- (cid:28)Under the circumstances above, and from the result of my enquiry it is found th at the Muslim People of Baghpori Chapori area are Fishermen by profession. Their only means of livelihood is fishing and selling fishes. However, in support of their claim that they belong to Maimals of Cachar district, no evidence could be found except the documentary evidence viz., Order on the Revenue Appeal petitio n, the certificate issued by the SDO(Civil), Mangaldai and report of Circle offi cer, Mangaldai Revenue Circle (ANNEXURES- XI, XII, AND XIV above). (cid:29) As regards the neighbourhood status of the constituents of the Responden 20. t No. 4 Society it is apparent from the records that the settling authority cons idered the following facts regarding the geographical location of the villages c onstituting the area of operation of the Respondent No. 4 Society while coming t o the conclusion that the members of the Respondent No. 4 Society are situated w ithin 0-3 Kms from the fishery :- (cid:28)(i) Baghpari chapari - 3 (three) k.m. away from the River Brahmaputra. (ii) Sparia chapari - 0(Zero) k.m. to Brahmaputra River. (iii) Dharia khaiti - 0(Zero) k.m. to Brhmaputra River. (iv) Dhansirikash (Kathani) - 1 ‰ (one and half) k.m. away from the River Brahma putra. (v) No. 1 Athakata- 2 (two) k.m. from Branmaputra River. (vi) No. 2 Athakata- 2 ‰ (two and half) k.m. from Brahmaputra River. (cid:29) 21. I respectfully recall the following lines from the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Majorati Min Samabai Samity -vs- Sukhraj Min S amabai Samity reported in 1998 (1) GLT 405 :- (cid:28) &.If the Settling Authority is alive to the requirements of the Rules and the s ame is reflected in the order of settlement of a Fishery, the Writ Court will no t be justified an undertaking and exercise of measuring the distance between two competent claimants &. (cid:29) 22. The new Rules of 2005 has not changed or unsettled the situations regard ing meaning and purport of the terms (cid:28)neighbourhood (cid:29) and (cid:28)area of operation (cid:29); th us rendering the binding precedents on this subject relevant even as of date. 23. I do not find any contra material on record, non-consideration of which could have vitiated the decision making process of the settling authority which ultimately culminated in settlement of the fishery in favour of the Respondent N o. 4. The relative merit of all the contenders regarding their eligibility statu s as well as bid value has been considered by the settling authority as is appar ent from the perusal of the Government records. Although in the note-sheet of th e Government records there are incidental analogous usage of the terms (cid:28)neighbou rhood (cid:29) and (cid:28)area of operation (cid:29), the same need not detain the Court, inasmuch as, the government records un-mistakenly reveal the pursuit of the settling authori ty to determine the comparative status of the contenders in relation to the resi dents of their constituents vis-à-vis the geographical distance of the area of t he fishery which is the crux of the criteria of (cid:28)neighbourhood (cid:29). While the (cid:28)area of operation (cid:29) means the villages/areas where the constituent members of the con tender co-operative society or self help groups or NGOs reside and such places/v illages of residents of such members are registered with the respective register ing authorities so that their areas do not overlap each other, the relative geog raphical distance of such villages or places of residences of the members of a c ontender constituting the area of operation of such contender determines its nei ghbourhood status vis-à-vis the fishery to be settled. A scrutiny of the records further reveal that amongst the contenders only the Respondent No. 4 submitted the neighbourhood certificate which is a condition precedent stipulated under th e Tender Notice. I do not find any infirmity in the decision making process of t he settling authority to the aforesaid end. Merely because in a given case the t erm (cid:28)area of operation (cid:29) is used instead of the term (cid:28)neighbourhood (cid:29), the same in itself will not be sufficient to vitiate a settlement order if the court finds that behind veil of the final executive order, the records pertaining to the set tlement process depict correct intent of the settling authority in terms of the requirements of the law. The other allegation against the Respondent No. 4 for having not submitt 24. ed its audited Balance Sheet is of no avail as the same is neither a condition p recedent prescribed either by the relevant Rules or by the particular Notice Inv iting Tender. 25. The allegation of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3921 of 2010 to the effect that the settling authority had wrongly stated facts regarding its area o f operation is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, the final order of settlement d ated 28.4.2010 do not contain any reference to the said society at all. The sett ling authority had taken up the tender documents of the 2 (two) highest bidders viz., Maa Mahalaxmi Atma Sahayak Got and Baghpori Maimal Meen Samabai Samity Ltd . The finding of facts regarding the two members of Maa Mahalaxmi Atma Sahayak G ot along with the fact regarding absence of experience certificate of this tende rer cannot be said to be perverse and erroneous as the same are borne out of mat erials on record on the basis of which the settling authority had come to this c onclusion. Once having singled out the highest bid submitted by an eligible tend erer satisfying all eligibility norms, it is not necessary for the settling auth ority to record its findings in respect of other tenderers offering lower bids. 26. This Court is conscious of the fact that in a Writ Proceeding under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of India it is not sitting in appeal over the decisi on of the primary settling authority. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction vested on a writ court are well settled and need not be reiterated again. The su bject at hand is the sanctity of an administrative act of the Government distrib uting public larges with the primary object of earning revenue. Obviously the ex ercise of power is regulated by the tenets of Rule and the touchstones of Articl e 14 of the Constitution of India. If the decision making process of the settlin g authority is vitiated by prima facie instances of non adherence to the aforesa id tenets of law resulting in illegality and violation of the enforceable rights of any citizen participating or eligible to participate in the process of settl ement, the court will reach and redress such injustice. This Court is also respe ctfully conscious of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. -Vs.- State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 and J agdish Mandal -vs- State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 summarizing the rein the well settled legal principles in this subject: - (cid:28) & & &A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding cont racts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural jus tice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona f ide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or pre judice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be perm itted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance c an always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted & &. (cid:29) 27. The sum total of the aforesaid discussion leads this Court to the inevit able conclusion of answering all the issues framed above in negative. All the wr it petitions are accordingly dismissed upholding the settlement order contained in No.FISH 104/91/1007 dated 28.04.2010. 26. o costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as t