Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors Represented ... on 26 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010051112025
2025:GAU-AS:3449-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/84/2025
M/S GANGADHAR FISHERY CO OP SOCIETY LTD A CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER THE ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ACT, 1949 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GOLAKGANJ, DIST-
DHUBRI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI LAL BAHADUR BISWAS,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O- LT. SUDHIR CH. BISWAS, VILL- SOUTH
RAIPUR, PART-III, P.O. AND P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-
783334
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERIES
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI
P.O. AND DIST- DHUBRI PIN- 783301
4:M/S DHUBRI DISABLED MEN JHAGRA DOHAR AND SOULMARI BEEL
FISHERY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. SOUTH RAIPUR
PART III P.O- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI PIN-78333
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Sarma, Advocate.
: Mr. H.J. Tamuli, Advocate.
: Mr. D. Kalita, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Sarmah, Standing Counsel, Fishery Department for respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
: Mr. N. Das, Junior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3.
: Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal,
Advocate for respondent No.4.
Page No.# 2/7
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
26.03.2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
P. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam
appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself.
This intra-Court writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved
with the judgment & order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.83/2025.
The appellant/writ petitioner has approached the Writ Court being
aggrieved with the decision of the respondent authorities to grant settlement of
Gr. No.15/101 Torsa River Fishery in the District of Dhubri in favour of the
respondent No.4 herein, who was also the respondent No.4 in the writ petition.
The main ground taken by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition
challenging the settlement of the Fishery in question in favour of the respondent
No.4 is that the respondent No.4 has failed to submit 100% Actual
Fisherman/Fish Farm Owner Certificate along with its bid and, therefore, they
are technically disqualified.
The claim of the appellant/writ petitioner was contested by the
respondent State authorities as well as the respondent No.4.
Page No.# 3/7
The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, has
rejected the said ground of the appellant/writ petitioner by passing the
impugned judgment. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-
"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. 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
Page No.# 4/7
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.
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 Page No.# 12/13 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.'
Page No.# 5/7
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 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."
It appears that the learned Single Judge has non-suited the
appellant/writ petitioner while observing that though the respondent No.4 had
not submitted the requisite Certificate along with its bid certifying that the
Members of the respondent No.4 Society are actual 100% fisherman but they
were operating the fishery in question since 2015 having 100% Actual
Fishermen Certificate and had also submitted a fresh Certificate of this effect, of
course after the due date. The learned Single Judge has also taken into
consideration the fact that the bid amount offered by the respondent No.4
Society is much higher than the bid amount offered by the appellant/writ
petitioner and other bidders. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, opined
Page No.# 6/7
that the decision of the State authorities of treating the 100% Actual Fishermen
Certificate produced by the respondent No.4 as valid, is bona fide.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after
going through the material available on record, we are of the view that the
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be
unreasonable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India -Vs-
Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 232 has held
that in an intra-Court writ appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and
the interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is
permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or
suffers from an error apparent in law. Relevant portion of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradip Kumar Banerjee (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:-
"36. The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court jurisdiction is
crystallised by this Court in the case of Management of Narendra &
Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3
SCC 340 wherein it was held as under:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come
to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January
1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without
any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench
ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the
evidence before the Labour Court.Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a
conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall
not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view
is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the
order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a
fairer approach on relief."
(emphasis supplied)
37. The position is, thus, settled that in an intra-court writ appeal, the
Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment
Page No.# 7/7
passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in
law. ............"
In view of the above, we are of the candid opinion that the judgment
& order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.83/2025 is neither perverse nor suffers from an error apparent in law.
Hence, no case for interference is made out and the writ appeal filed by the
appellant/writ petitioner is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
