High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 687/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) All the three writ petitions pertaining to settlement of No.1 Dhar Brahm aputra Fishery, a 60% category fishery, which is required to be settled under Ru le 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, with 100% actual fishermen groups, who a re located in the district and neighbourhood of the fishery, have been heard ana logously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. The case has a chequered history as follows. By NIT dated 19.1.2006, the Govt. invited tenders for settlement of the fishery for a period of 7(seven) ye ars w.e.f. 11.3.2006 to 10.3.2013. On completion of the tender process, the sett ling authority, upon examination of the 4(four) tenders received in response to the NIT, declared that one M/s. Kachudola Society, despite being the highest bid der at Rs. 35,15,644/-, having not submitted, interalia, the most important cert ificate i.e. Neighbourhood certificate, was not entitled to get consideration fo r settlement. The fishery was settled with one M/s. Manash Society, at its bid value of Rs. 12,40,632/-. The settlement was put to challenge by M/s. Kachudola Society by filling a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1507/2006. The writ petition was allowed by judgement and order dated 22.3.2006, setting aside the settlemen t made in favour of M/s. Manash Society and the matter was remanded back to the settling authority for a fresh decision, after enabling the petitioner’s society to furnish the requisite documents for want of which, its tender was rejected. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the settling authority onc 3. e again examined the matter and permitted M/s.Kachudola Society to submit 3 (thr ee) vital certificates and thereafter in consideration of those certificates and in view of its higher bid of Rs. 35,14,644/-, settled the fishery with it. In t he order of settlement dated 15.5.2006, Clause-2 of the NIT requiring a tendere r to be of the concerned district was noted. Be it stated here that the fishery traverses through 3 (three) districts : 17.66% falls in Bongaigaon district ; 7 6.30% falls in Goalpara district and 6.04% falls within Dhubri district. Be it a lso stated here that these three districts have been bifurcated from the earlier composite Dhubri district but the settlement process still vests with the distr ict authorities of Dhubri district. 4. The aforesaid order of settlement dated 15.5.2006 was put to challenge b y M/s. Manash Society in WP(C) No. 2501/2006. The writ petition was disposed of by judgement and order dated 14.2.2008, holding that the settling authorities pa ssed the order of settlement without making an enquiry or giving a finding in re spect of the claim of M/s. Kachudola Society that it is in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The order of settlement having been set aside, the matter was again remanded back to the settling authority for giving a fresh decision. Pursuant t o the judgement and order, the matter was considered again by the settling autho rity and by order dated 5.4.2008, the fishery was once again settled with M/s. K achudola Society. That time also, the settlement was challenged by filing WP(C) No. 1566/2008. By judgement and order dated 31.7.2009, the writ petition was dis posed of directing the respondents to initiate fresh settlement process by issui ng a fresh NIT with the following observation. (cid:28)23. It is seen that even after 3 attempts, the Settling Authority has failed
Legal Reasoning
to resolve the issue that arise in the instant case and in the process, the set tlement could not be made operational even 3 ‰ years after issuance of the NIT d ated 19.1.2006. In the meantime, the parties have been litigating and despite tw o rounds of litigation, the impugned settlement granted in favour of M/s. Kachud ola Society does not appear to be in conformity with the requirement of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. 24. Considering the passage of time and the fact that more than half of the settlement period is already over, instead of remanding the matter for a fresh s ettlement exercise in pursuant to the NIT dated 19.1.2006, I feel that interest of public and justice would be served, if the respondents are directed to initia te a fresh settlement process by issuing a fresh NIT for settlement of the No.1 Dhar Brahmaputra Fishery, in terms of the Fishery Rules. It is ordered according ly. (cid:29) 5. After the said developments, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri in the Reve nue (Fishery Branch), issued the NIT dated 16.12.2009 inviting tenders for settl ement of the fishery. Some of the conditions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties are quoted below:- Tenders can be submitted by the Co-operative Societies, Self Help Groups (cid:28)2. , NGO’s comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Schedule Caste community or M aimal Community of Barak Valley. Tenderer has to be of that district and neighbo urhood of the fishery concerned. 3. ner / Sub-divisional Officer on the fixed date. Tenders will be accepted in the concerned office of the Deputy Commissio 4. Intending tenderers have to submit tenders in the concerned Box by 2 P.M . on 21.01.2010 in the concerned office and no tender will be accepted after the time fixed. Tenders have to be submitted along with requisites / certificates a s mentioned below :- Fishing experience certificate, (a) Bakijai clearance certificate, Schedule Caste Certificate / Maimal Community Certificate and certificat (b) (c) e of actual fisherman, (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) . Postal Order/ cheque/bank draft of Rs. 10/-. Revenue deposit of 15% of the Government yearly value. Society Registration Certificate, Tax clearance certificate, Photo of the person authorized to submit tender on behalf of the society A copy of the Balance Sheet of the society. (i) List of name, address and age of the members of the society. (j) (k) Certificate showing the distance / area from the concerned Min Mahal. Th e Deputy Commissioner will enquire the settlement by the concerned Magistrate in time. 6. the bidders or their representatives. (cid:29) Tenders will be opened after the submission time is over in presence of 6. In response to the said NIT, all the three petitioners involved in these writ petitions and the private respondent M/s. Gauripur Cooperative Fishery Soc iety Ltd. of Dhubri district, with whom the impugned settlement has been made su bmitted their tenders. However, before the settlement could be made, the petitio ner in WP(C) 297/2012, namely M/s. Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Cooperative societ y Ltd. filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 872/2011, making a grievance agains t rejection of his tender on the ground of non-submission of the following docum ents :- i) ii) iii) Approved managing committee’s resolution of the society. Members list of the society, 100% SC actual fishermen certificate, Fishing experience certificate, iv)
Legal Reasoning
7. In the said writ petition, it was admitted by the petitioner that altho ugh the last date of submission of the tenders was 21.1.2010 upto 2 pm and that the tenders were to be opened at 3 pm, but it had submitted certain certificates on 22.1.2010. However, by that time after opening of the tenders, comparative statements, etc were prepared. It was contended that the documents submitted by it after opening of the tenders and preparation of comparative statement, ought to have been accepted towards consideration of its bid on its own merit. 8.
Decision
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by judgement and order dated 22.1.2011 holding it to be premature as the Govt. was yet to take a decision in the matter. It was held that it would be in the interest of justice to allow th e settling authority to proceed with the settlement process by considering the t enders received from the tenderers in accordance with law and thereafter to pass necessary order of settlement. Noticing the fact that there was considerable de lay in making the settlement and that the fishery was being managed through inte rim arrangement, it was provided that the authority would pass the settlement or der within four weeks. Thereafter, the Governor of Assam passed the impugned Ann exure-13 order dated 26.12.2011 settling the fishery with the private respondent , namely. M/s. Gauripur Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s . Gauripur Society) at its bid value of Rs. 23,94,707/-. Be it stated here that the bid offered by the petitioner stands at Rs. 98,00,000/-, while the bids offe red by the other two writ petitioners involved in WP(C) No. 34/2012 (M/s. Kachud ola Society) and Rs. 22,78,970/- involved in WP(C) No. 687/2013 (M/s. Manash Soc iety), respectively. 9. By the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 while settling the fishery with t he private respondent No.7 in WP(C) No. 297/2012 i.e. M/s. Gauripur Society (4t h highest bidder) with the observation that it has submitted all the required do cuments, so far as the petitioner’s society is concerned, it has been observed t hat M/s. Khoraghat Society did not submit the aforementioned 4 (four) certificat es including 100% actual SC Fishermen Certificate. As regard the other two petit ioners, namely, M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Manash Society, it has been obse rved that the said two societies reside / fall in other districts other than the Dhubri District. The aforesaid findings recorded in the impugned order of settlement has 10. been challenged by M/s. Khoraghat Society on the ground that it being the highes t bidder, the fishery ought to have been settled with it as it had cured the def ects in its tender subsequently. According to the petitioner, the defects indica ted in the impugned order are not essential eligibility conditions but only anci llary / subsidiary conditions of eligibility and can be cured even after opening of tenders and preparation of comparative statements. The other two petitioners, namely, M/s. Kachudola Cooperative Society Lt 11. d. and M/s. Manash Cooperative Society, have challenged the settlement order mad e in favour of M/s. Gauripur Society on the ground that their exclusion on the g round of being not resident of Dhubri district and / or being resident of other districts is illegal. Referring to the percentage of area of operation indicted above, it is the case of the petitioners that although the tender process was in itiated by the DC, Dhubri, their tenders ought to have been considered irrespect ive of whether they are resident of Dhubri or not. In WP(C) No. 34/2012 involvin g M/s. Kachudola Society, even a challenge has been made to the tender condition requiring that the society should be a resident of the district. In WP(C) 687/2 013 (M/s. Manash Society), the petitioner has prayed for its consideration in t he event of considering the case of M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Khoraghat S ociety. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing M/s. Khoraghat Society invol 12. ved in WP(C) No. 297/2012, submitted that the petitioner having submitted the re quired documents, although after opening of the tenders, the said documents ough t to have been accepted by the authority as the requirement of the said document s was not the essential condition but only ancillary / subsidiary conditions. Pl acing reliance on the order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Division Bench in WA 2 94/2011 (Abu Talib Vs. AFDC), in which the authority was allowed to rectify the defect of submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate, to be cured, held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner or to the public revenue. He submitted t hat as in the said case in the instant case also, the settling authority ought t o have accepted the certificates produced by the petitioner at a later stage, mo re particularly, when it has offered the highest bid of Rs. 98,00,000/-. Opposing the said argument, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel a 13. ssisted by Mr. K. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.7 i. e. M/s. Gauripur Society, with whom the settlement has been made, submitted that the petitioner is precluded from raising any grievance, inasmuch as, as per its own admission, its tender papers did not accompany the essential documents. He submitted that the rate offered by the petitioner is also exorbitant as compared to the amount at which the earlier settlement was made. Placing reliance on the following decisions, he submitted that this Court exercising its power of judic ial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not sit on appea l over the particular discretion exercised by the settling authority as reflecte d in the impugned order :- 1. and others). AIR 1991 SC 1579 (Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works 2. snagar Municipal Corporation and others). (2000) 5 SCC 287 (Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulha 3. d others). (2000) 2 SCC 617 (Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd an 4. (1990) 2 SCC 486 (Ram Gajadhar Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and others). 5. her). (2009) 11 SCC 9 (Sorath Builders Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd. and Anot 6. nd others). (2011) 5 SCC 103 (Glodyne Techniserve Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh a 7. 8. 9. (2007) 14 SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others). (2010) 1 SCC 139 (BECIL Vs. Arraycom India Ltd. and others). 2003(2) GLT 485 (Bikash Bora Vs. State of Assam and others). 10. 11. 12. 2005(3)GLT 580 (Benjamin Lalrinawma Vs. State of Mizoram and others). 2009(3) GLT 144 (Mahananda Gogoi Vs. State of Assam and others). 2011 (2) GLT 389 (Bimal Das Vs. AFDC and others) (cid:29) 14. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel representing the petitioner M/s. K achudola Society involved in WP(C) 34/2012 submitted that the settling authority ought to have considered the tender submitted by the petitioner keeping in mind the area of operation of the fishery within the vicinity of the petitioner’s so ciety. According to him, the imposition of the condition in the NIT that the soc iety will have to be from the same district is opposed to the provisions of Assa m Fishery Rules, 1953. 15. Countering the said arguments, Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel a ssisted by Ms. Pallavi Sharma, learned counsel representing the private responde nt, submitted that the bid offered by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, unrea listic and imaginary and there is every possibility of the petitioner becoming a defaulter. He also submitted that the observation made in the order dated 31.7. 2009 passed in WP(C) 1566/2008, referred to above, takes care of the plea of the other two petitioners that irrespective of their societies being in other distr icts and the tender process was initiated by the authority in Dhubri district, t heir tenders ought to have been considered. 16. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Manash Society involved in the third writ petition being WP(C) 687/2013 adopting the arguments advanced by M/s. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel representing M/s. Kachudola Society, also submitted that the petitioner’s tender ought to have been considered. He fu rther submitted that if the pleas advanced by M/s. Kachudola Society and M/s. Kh oraghat Society, are accepted, then in that case the tenders submitted by the pe titioner should also be considered. Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel by producing the relevant records 17. submitted that the impugned decision of settling the fishery with M/s. Gauripur Society is legally valid and sustainable in law. He submitted that the tenderers having submitted their tenders with their eyes open to the conditions stipulate d therein, cannot now turn around the same so as to take the plea that the defec ts, if any, are curable and that irrespective of the districts in which their so cieties are situated, they are entitled to get consideration in respect of the s ettlement in the concerned district i.e. Dhubri district. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea 18. rned counsel for the parties ad have also perused the entire materials on record including the file that has been produced by Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Coun sel. 19. As to what was the plea of M/s. Khoraghat Society in its earlier writ pe tition being WP(C) No. 872/2011 disposed of by order dated 22.11.2011, holding t he same to be pre-mature has been noted above. The last date of submission of te nder was 21.2.2010 upto 2 pm. It was only thereafter the petitioner’s society su bmitted its documents on 22.1.2010. As to what are the documents has also been n oted above. The NIT was issued on 15.12.2009 and admittedly the tender submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the four documents indicated above. In para graph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner itself has stated that the tender was to be accompanied, amongst others, a list of members of the tendering cooper ative society and that the same to be an authentic document containing the names and address of all the members of the society, duly approved by the appropriate office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It has also been admitted tha t while submitting the tender on 21.2.2010, it could not submit the said documen t as the same was applied for on 18.1.2010 from the office of the Assistant Regi strar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri. 20. It is in the above context, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel r epresenting the respondent No.7 submitted that although the NIT was issued on 15 .12.2009, the petitioner’s society kept on waiting till the last hour (18.1.2010 ) and thereafter submitted the same to the authority but by that time, everythin g was over i.e. opening of the bids and preparation of the comparative statement , etc. 21. Above apart and as reflected in the earlier order of this Court dated 22 .11.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 872/2011, the petitioner also did not submit (1) 10 0% SC actual Fishermen Certificate ; (2) Fishing Experience Certificate and (3) Approved managing committee’s resolution of the Society. 22. As per the tender conditions noted above, tenderer was to accompany the requisite certificates indicated in the NIT which included Fishing Experience Ce rtificate, SC Certificate and Certificate of Actual Fishermen ; the list of name s and address and age of the members of the Society etc. Upon verification of th e records what I have found is that the tenders submitted by the petitioner did not accompany the duly approved resolution of its society authorizing its Secret ary Shri Dulal Chandra Sarkar to submit tender. On the other hand, the tender su bmitted by M/s. Gauripur Society Ltd. did contain the duly approved resolution o f the society authorizing its Secretary Shri Debendra Nath Sarkar to submit the tender. The resolution was approved by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative So cieties, Dhubri. Such approval is essential, inasmuch as, in absence of any such approval, any person purportedly representing a society could submit tender, al though not duly authorized by the Cooperative society. Even otherwise also in th e activities of a Cooperative Society, its resolutions are required to be appro ved by the authority acting under the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam. 23. Apart from the above deficiencies, the tender submitted by the petitione r was also not accompanied by Fishing Experience Certificate ; 100% SC Actual Fi shermen and their livelihood is fishing and the approved member list of the Soci ety. On scrutiny of the tender submitted by the petitioner, it is found that the fishing experience certificate was issued by the Sub-divisional Fishery Develop ment Officer, Bilasipara on 4.1.2010 but not by an authority under the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam. That apart, the requirement of being 100% SC a ctual fishermen and their livelihood is fishing was also not enclosed along with the tender documents. As to what is the position relating to the list of member s of the society has been noted above. Admittedly, the tender submitted by the p etitioner did not accompany the said membership list. It was only after opening of the bids and preparation of the comparative statement, the petitioner had sub mitted the said list which the authority declined to accept. Par contra, the res pondent No.7 i.e. M/s. Gauripur Society submitted its tender accompanied by 100% actual fishermen belong to SC community Certificate of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhubri and all other documents along with the list of members and the approved resolution of the society in respect of submission of t ender. In Poddar Steel Corporation (supra), the Apex Court classifying the requ 24. irement of tender notice into non-essential or ancillary, held that if it is ess ential, the same is required to be enforced rigidly but in the later case the sa me may be deviated from. In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.(supra), the Apex Co urt set aside the award of contract to a tenderer who at the time of submission of tender did not satisfy one of the conditions of eligibility, which was subseq uently deleted after the expiry of the time limit for submission of tenders but before opening thereof. In Air India Ltd (Supra), emphasising on the need to com ply with the norms, standards and procedure in awarding contract by State or its instrumentality, it was held by the Apex Court that the State can choose its ow n method. It was further held that the Court cannot interfere with the discretio n exercised by the authority and the Court should exercise its discretionary pow er with great caution and only in furtherance of overwhelming public interest. I n the said case, the Apex Court having noticed that the limited global competiti ve bidding having been accepted on the last date fixed, it was not open to the a uthority to initiate negotiation with another party behind the back of the other party and thereby permitting the said party to revise its offer. In Ram Gajadhar Nishad (Supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the n 25. on-submission of the solvency certificate within the last date of submission of tender and current character certificate as required by the tender conditions ha ving not been complied with, the tender submitted by the particular party, could not have been accepted. In Sorathi Builders (Supra), the Apex Court was concern ed with late submission of the pre-qualification documents and the effect thereo f. In the said case, the respondent No. 1 had submitted certain documents after 3 days of the last date of submission. Although his bid was lower than that of t he appellant, the same was rejected. Upholding such rejection, the apex Court he ld that the respondent No.1 was himself to blame for late submission of document s. In Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. (Supra) also when there was non-compliance of con ditions of NIT by submitting qualified documents, it was held that although the appellant had a valid and active ISO certification, which he did not submit alon g with the bid documents, may be due to inadvertence, however, whether such expl anation was to be accepted or not lay within the discretionary powers of authori ty inviting bids. In that case, rejection of the bid of the appellant was held n ot perverse or arbitrary. 26. In Benjamin Lalrinawma (Supra), this Court upholding the rejection of th e particular tender on the ground of non-submission of authorization, distributo rship / dealership certificate as per conditions of NIT, held that submission of such certificate was essential condition for a valid tender and that the author ity rightly declared the said tender as invalid. In Mahananda Gogoi (Supra) also this Court dealing with upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s tender on t he ground of non-submission of (cid:28)No Debt Certificate (cid:29), although consequence of no n-compliance was not mentioned in the NIT, held that there must be strict adhere nce to the conditions of the NIT. In Bikash Bora (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that non-fulfillment of conditions required for submission of va lid tender was fatal to the tenders submitted by the appellant. In the said case , the appellant, although, was the highest bidder but did not submit the Loan Cl earance Certificate and Sales tax Clearance Certificate. It was argued that the said requirements were not essential but only ancillary. The Division Bench held that submission of such certificates was essential condition for valid tender a nd accordingly upheld the cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the a ppellant. 27. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from referring t o the decision in Abu Talib (Supra) has also referred to the order dated 22.3.20 06 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1507/2006 (Annexure-2). By the said order it was held that failure to produce the certificate with regard to the status of the members of the petitioner’s society and the neighbourhood thereof was not f atal. The said observation was made in reference to the NIT in which there was n o requirement to submit the same. Unlike the present case in which the requireme nt of the certificate was specifically mentioned in the NIT. In the case of Abu Talib (Supra), the test of (cid:28)Curable Defect (cid:29) was applied in respect of submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate at a later stage as the same did not cause any prejudice to the case of the petitioner, which is also not the case in hand. 28. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision and having r egard to the fact that the petitioner did not submit the essential certificates, there was nothing wrong in not considering its tender on merit applying the sou nd discretion in the matter. 29. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 during the course of hearing ref erring to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 also argued that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available by way of an appeal against the order of settlement. Under Rul e 11, against the orders of the settling authority passed under the rules, appea ls would lie to the Assam Board of Revenue and the appeals must be preferred wit hin 30 days of the date of such orders. However, having regard to the earlier ro und of litigation and since the matter has been adjudicated on its own merit, th is aspect of the matter need not detain us. 30. The petitioner i.e. M/s. Khoraghat Society having failed to submit its b id along with the required documents, the settling authority was within its comp etence and jurisdiction to reject its tender. It may not be out of place to refe r to the letter dated 22.1.2010 (Annexure-6), which the petitioner submitted bef ore the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri (Fishery Branch). In the said letter, it was stated thus :- (cid:28)Sir, I have the honour to state that due to sheer mistake, I could not submit the fol lowing documents while submitting my tender for I No. Dhar Brahmaputra on 21.02. 2010 in respect of 100% actual fishermen of my society and copy of uptodate list of members of Societies. Those are submitted along with this petition which may kindly be accepted and thus oblige. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dulal Ch. Sarkar) 22.01.2010 Secretary, Khoraghat Gulihara Fishery Cooperative Societies Ltd. 1) Fishery Deptt. Copy of order dt. 18.12.1995 of Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Documents filed :- 2) ssam, Fishery Deptt. Copy of order dt. 20.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Secy. to the Govt. of A 3) ative Societies, Dhubri on 19.7.1976. Copy of Member list of Societies’ member approved by the A.R. of Co-oper 4) i on 21.5.2009. (cid:29) Copy of Member list of Societies’ member approved by the A.R.C.S., Dhubr From the above letter, what is seen is that as per the own admission of 31. the petitioner, due to sheer mistake it could not submit the documents mentioned in the letter along with its tender documents. The plea now raised in the writ petition was not raised in the said letter. Thus, the fact of non-submission of the required documents along with tender is an admitted position and the submiss ion thereof on a subsequent date i.e. 22.1.2010 at 4 pm after the last date i.e. 21.1.2010 (2 pm) and preparation of the comparative statement, was of no help t o the case of the petitioner and also to argue that the said requirements are on ly ancillary and not essential conditions. 32. tition being WP(C) No. 297/2012 merits dismissal which I accordingly do. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the writ pe 33. In 2008(1)GLR 284 (Sushila Devi and others Vs. Stte of Tripura and other s), it was held that non-submission of the Sale Tax Clearance Certificate along with the technical bid warranted rejection of the tender and accordingly such re jection was upheld. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Deputy Commiss ioner of the district i.e. Dhubri by his report dated 11.7.2011 had apprised the Govt. in the Fishery Department that M/s. Kachudola Society did not fulfill the requirement of all the members of the Society being 100% SC actual fishermen an d engaged in the profession of fishing. By the said report, upon a detailed anal ysis, the respondent No.7 was recommended for settlement of the fishery as it fu lfilled all the required conditions of the NIT and also the criteria laid down i n Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 2005 (as amended). It was upon such a proc edure adopted, the settling authority applying its sound discretion came to the findings that the respondent No. 7 is the most deserving one to get the settleme nt. Such sound discretion applied by the settling authority, in my considered vi ew, cannot be interfered with lightly. 34. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mondal Vs. State of Or issa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, if the decision relating to award of contrac t is bonafide and is in public interest, Courts will not interfere by exercising power of judicial review even if a procedural averration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. Power of judicial review will not be in voked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide c ontractual disputes. In BECIL Vs. Vs. Arraycom India Ltd. and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 139 when it was notice that the respondent No.1 was at fault for giving ambiguous proposal and the Govt. authority had taken reasonable and possi ble interpretation, it was held that the High Court should not be intervened in the matter as the scope of judicial review is limited in such matter. 35. This now leads us to other two writ petitions and the plea raised therei n. As noted above, both the petitioners are not in the district of Dhubri. While M/s. Kachudola Society is in the district of Bongaigaon, M/s. Manash Society is in the district of Goalpara. As per the tender condition No.2, the Society offe ring bid will have to be of the same district i.e. Dhubri and within the neighbo urhood of the fishery. Both the petitioners having not fulfilled this condition were not considered by the settling authority, as reflected in the impugned orde r of settlement. 36. This aspect of the matter was dealt with in the earlier round of litigat ion in WP(C) No. 1566/2008. In Clause-2 of the NIT, it was stipulated that the t enderer must be of the district and in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The dis trict is Dhubri. Such a condition having been laid down, it is only on fulfillme nt of the said condition, the other two petitioners namely, M/s. Kachudola Socie ty and M/s. Manash Society would have been eligible to submit their tenders. Whi le issuing direction for initiating fresh tender processing by the said order da ted 31.7.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 1566/2008, it was categorically observed that the requirement of the said condition was overlooked by the settling authority w hile considering the tenders of the said two petitioners. In paragraph 22 of the judgement it was recorded that there was no findings recorded by the settling a uthority that the particular society fulfills the criteria of neighbourhood of (cid:28) that district (cid:29) as was envisaged in Clause 2 of the NIT. In paragraph 18 of the s aid judgement also noticing non-fulfillment of the said condition, it was observ ed that the tenderer would not be entitled to consideration and that a tenderer from another district would not be entitled to be considered as eligible as per clause-2. This finding has attained finality in absence of any challenge to the same. 37. That apart, the petitioners having participated in the fresh tender proc ess with the background of the said decision and the requirement of to be a resi dent of (cid:28)that District (cid:29) (Clause-2 of the NIT), they are now precluded from raisi ng the plea that the said condition is opposed to the fishery rules and that the y are also entitled to get consideration irrespective of the fact that their soc ieties are situated in the district of Bongaigaon and Goalpara respectively. The plea of estoppel will stand on their way. The administrative control of the fis hery being with the Deputy Commissioner of Dhubri district and the tender proces s having been initiated by the said authority with the clear stipulation that th e societies will have to be resident of that district, the said condition cannot be ignored. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said condition, they ought to have challenged the same at the appropriate time. It will also have to be bo rne in mind that the said condition has also been discussed in the aforesaid ord er of this Court dated 31.7.2009 and referring to the said condition, it has be en held that the societies which are not the resident of the said district, are not entitled to get consideration. This declaration having attained finality, ca n not be set at naught by this Court and that too in an alternative challenge ma de by the petitioners, who are also confronted with the principle of estoppel, t hey having participated in the tender process with their eyes wide open to the s aid conditions / requirement, to be of (cid:28)that District (cid:29). 38. petitions and also accordingly they are also dismissed. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in these two writ 39. ons are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All the writ petitions are answered in the above manner. The writ petiti