Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010085402022
2025:GAU-AS:8707
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3079/2022
M/S PARGHAT KAIBARTA MIN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITI LTD.
P.O.- GHILAMARA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, SRI HARENDRA HAZARIKA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006.
2:JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR.
5:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR.
6:M/S KARHA FISHERY SAMABAI SAMITTEE LTD.
VILL. PUTHIKATHI
PO- BATMARI
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR- 782122
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOWDHURY SR ADV, MS G DAS,MR T DAS,MR. S
BISWAKARMA
Page No.# 2/16
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS M BORAH(r-6),MS. M DEVI (r-6),MR. A DAS (r-
6),MR. N C DAS (r-6)
Linked Case : WP(C)/2744/2022
CHITRA DAS
SECRETARY OF KARHAPARIYA ANCHALIK KOIBARTA SURAKHYA SAMITY
SON OF CHANDA DAS
BATAMARI
GHILAMARA
P.O. AND P.S. GHILAMARA
SUB-DIVN- DHAKUWAKHANA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
PIN- 787053
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
ASSAM
2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
ASSAM
3:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
PIN- 787001
ASSAM
5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (I/C)
DHAKUAKHANA
PIN- 787053
Page No.# 3/16
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
6:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SDO)
DHAKUWAKHANA SUB-DIVISION
DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
7:THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(FOR SETTLEMENT OF KORHA FISHERY PART-II)
DHAKUAKHANA
DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
8:M/S. KARHA FISHERY SAMABAI SAMITY LTD.
BATAMARI
DHAKUAKHANA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR DEBA SARMAH
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
Linked Case : WP(C)/6026/2022
M/S PARGHAT KAIBARTA MIN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITI LTD.
P.O.-GHILAMARA
DIST- LAKHIMPUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI HARENDRA HAZARIKA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
2:JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
Page No.# 4/16
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
5:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
6:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHAKUAKHANA
DIST-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
7:M/S KARHA FISHERY SAMABAI SAMITEE LTD.
VILL-PUTHIKATHI
P.O.-BATMARI
DIST-LAKHIMPUR-782122
------------
Advocate for : MR. I CHOWDHURY SR ADV
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
1. Heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
3079/2022 and in WP(C) No. 6026/2022, and Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2744/2022. Also heard Ms. U.
Das, learned State counsel representing the State respondents and
Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel for the private respondentin all the writ
petitions, in whose favour, the settlement dated 07.04.2022 was
Page No.# 5/16
made, pursuant to an NIT.
2. These three writ petitions are taken up together for final
disposal, as agreed by the contesting parties, more particularly, for
the reason that the subject matters of these three writ petitions relate
to challenge to the order of settlementdated 07.04.2022,whereby,
Karha Part-II Fishery in Dhakuakhana Sub-Division in the district of
Lakhimpur was settled in favour of the private respondent i.e. M/s
Karha Fishery Samabai Samity Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s
Karha). Such settlement order was issued under the signature of the
Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department.
3. The offer of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3079/2022, i.e. M/s
ParghatKaibarta Min Silpa Samabai Samity Ltd, (hereinafter referred
to as M/s Parghat) was rejected, primarily on the ground that the
Experience Certificate submitted by M/s Parghat in terms of the NIT
dated 20.11.2021 is not acceptable, as the said certificate does not
disclose the experience of the society in fishing.
4. The said settlement order dated 07.04.2022 is challenged by
Karhapariya Anchalik Koibarta Surakhya Samity (hereinafter referred
to as M/s Karhapariya), in WP(C)/2744/2022.The bid of M/s
Karhapariya was rejected, primarily on the ground that the society did
not submit 100% actual fisherman certificate from the competent
authority andit submitted audited accounts only for the year 2021,
but not for 3 years as required under the condition of the NIT dated
20.11.2021 and also that the security deposit has been made in the
name of an individual not in the name of the society.
Page No.# 6/16
5. WP(C) No. 6026/2022 is filed by M/s Parghatassailing an order
dated 28.07.2022, whereby the Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Dhakuakhana, submitted a report as per the direction of the Deputy
Commissioner, Lakhimpur, as regards the genuineness of the
Neighbourhood Certificate of M/s Karha, such an enquiry was
conducted based on the complaints lodged by M/s Karhapariya and
M/s Parghat before the Minister of Fisheries, raising dispute that M/s
Karha is not situated within the neighbourhood of Karha Part-II
Fishery.
6. The brief facts, which are necessary for the determination of
the present writ petitions,are recorded hereinbelow as under:
I. There was a dispute regarding the cancellation of
certificate of M/S Karha fishery and the amalgamation of said fishery
with M/s Parghat. The dispute went upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1674-75 of 1999,while
deciding the issue, recorded the following decisions and issued
certain directions:-
A. M/s Parghat was registered in the year 1971, and pursuant to a
Government policy decision, said M/s Parghat was amalgamated with
M/s KarhaSociety, being a new society, which was formed out of
PuttikhatiSociety. Thus, the new society, namely, M/s Karha society,
came to be registered in the year 1978.
B. At that relevant point of time, the Karha society was having a
lease in its favour in respect of certain areas, which were formerly
Page No.# 7/16within the areas of operation of M/s Parghat.
C. An order dated 24.10.1996 was passed by the authorities in the
State, by which the registration of M/S Karha society was cancelled.
The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to set asidethe aforesaid order
of cancellation, with a further direction to the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies or other competent authorities under the Assam
Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 to issue notice to both the societies
i.e. M/s Parghat and M/s Karha and to divide what should be the
equitable areasof operation of each of these two societies.
D. It was further directed that such exercise be carried out based on
the existence of the societies. It was also observed by the Hon’ble
Apex Courtthat once the area of operation is equitably distributed
between the two societies, the Government may proceed for grant of
lease separately as regards each of the societies equitably to the
extent of the area of operation of these societies.
ii. In terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the society was divided into two parts, a map of which is also
part of the record of these writ petitions. It was divided into two
areas, i.e. Karha Part-I Fishery, which is the upper portion of the river
and Karha Part-II Fishery, which is the lower portion of the river.
iii. Thereafter, in the year 2011, Karha Part-II fishery,was settled
with M/s Karha for 7 (seven) years through an NIT, in which
process,M/s Parghat did not participate. Though, the same was
challenged by other bidders before this Court in WP(C) No.
Page No.# 8/161586/2013 and the matter was remanded back by this Court for a
fresh decision under its order dated 19.11.2013, on the ground that
the rejection of the bid of the petitioner therein was not justified,
however, it was again settled with M/s Karha. Thereafter, the present
NIT was issued on 20.11.2021, inviting bids for the settlement of
Karha Part-II Fishery by the authorities in which the petitioners,M/s
Parghat and M/s Karhapariya, and the respondent, M/s Karha
participated.
iv. M/sKarhapariya offered a bid price of Rs. 15,52,000/- and
stood asthe highest bidder.M/s Karha with an offer price of Rs.
11,31,101/- stood at second position, and M/s Parghat with an offer
price of Rs. 5,32,696/- stood at fourth position. As recorded
hereinabove, the bids of the first, third and fourth bidders were
rejected. The first and fourth bidders are before this Court; however,
the third bidder has not challenged the settlement made on behalf of
M/s Karha.
v. After evaluation of the bids and preparation of the
comparative statements, the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 was
passed settling the fishery in question in favour of M/sKarha and
these writ petitions are filed, accordingly.
7. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
3079/2022 and in WP(C) No. 6026/2022, argues that, the area of
operation of M/s Karha is within Karha Part-II Fishery. Such is an
admitted position, more particularly, for the reason that pursuant to a
Page No.# 9/16
determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
1674-75 of 1999, the authority itself divided the fishery into two
parts, i.e. Karha Part-I Fishery, earmarking it as the area of operation
of M/s Karha and Karha Part-II Fishery, earmarking the same to be
the area of operation ofM/s Parghatand therefore, the bid of M/s
Karha in respect of Karha Part-II Fishery,ought not to have been even
entertained.
8. According to Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, the
enquiry based on which, the area of operation of M/s Karha was
treated to be within Karha Part-II Fishery, is not sustainable on the
face of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 1674-75 of 1999and therefore, according to him,
findings of such an enquiry arealso liable to be interfered with as
prayed in WP(C) No. 6026/2022.
9. So far, relating to the rejection of the bid of M/sParghat, on
the ground of want of fishing Experience Certificate, according to the
learned senior Counsel, is not sustainable, more particularly, for the
determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
1674-75 of 1999 and the subsequent action of the respondent
authorities in equally dividing the fishery into two parts i.e. Karha
Part-I Fishery and Karha Part-II Fishery, earmarking the area of
operation to be of M/s Karha in respect of Karha Part-I Fishery and of
M/sParghat in respect of Karha Part-II Fishery. Therefore, the
authority could not have rejected the tender of M/s Parghat for the
reason that the society does not have the fishing Experience
Page No.# 10/16
Certificate.
10. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, further contends that
so far, relating to acceptance of the bid of M/s Karha, from the face of
it, such bid value is nothing but a predatory pricing. Referring to a
communication dated 09.11.2017, whereby remission was granted to
M/s Karha in respect of the earlier settlement of Karha Part-II Fishery,
it is contended that at that relevant point of time, the fishery was
settled at Rs. 4,21,000/-.However, M/s Karha could not even deposit
such a genuine price and had to seek remission and accordingly,
remission of 30% was granted. Referring to another communication
dated 08.11.2019, Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel further
contends that on the failure of M/s Karha to run the settled fishery
and for the reason that it sustained loses, extension was also granted
and therefore, the present price offered by M/s Karha at Rs.
11,31,101/- is nothing but a predatory pricing and therefore, the
authority ought not to have accepted such a price.
11. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel further contends that
the authority has failed to apply the principle of distributive justice, in
the given facts of the present cases, inasmuch as, the authority has
given undue importance to M/s Karha, who has not only been a
defaulter, but also sought for extension, citing loses.The authority has
also notfollowed the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
wherein the direction was issued to equally distribute the areas
amongst these two societies, so far as it relates to the earlier united
fishery. Accordingly, Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, submits
Page No.# 11/16
that the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 is liable to be interfered
with and the respondent authorities should be directedto consider the
case of the petitioner afresh.
12. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Chowdhury,
learned Senior Counsel,places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, rendered in M/s Jahnobi Matchyajibi Samabai
Samity Ltd -Vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 1997 (1)
GLT 124, Akaddas Ali -Vs- State of Assam and Ors reported in
2014 4 GLR 3 and M/s Luhit Erasuti Mach Mahal Samabaya
Samity Ltd. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 1997(1)
GLT 276.
13. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for M/s
Karhapariyain WP(C) No. 2744/2022, argues that its bid has been
illegally rejected, more particularly, for want of having three years of
audited balance sheets. According to the learned counsel, three years
of experience is not mandated in terms of the tender condition, and
M/s Karhapariya, admittedly being a new society, could not have
audited balance sheets of three years and therefore, such rejection is
bad in the face of it.
14. Ms. U. Das, learned State counsel representing the State
respondents, argues that there is no illegality in passing the
impugned order, inasmuch as a specific condition was there in the
NIT requiringa certificate disclosing the experience of the society in
fishing. Such tender condition not being under challenge, the
petitioner, M/s Parghat was under a bounden duty to submit such a
Page No.# 12/16
certificate, and the authorities, not being satisfied with such a
certificate, have rightly cancelled such defective bid.
15. Ms. U. Das, learned State counsel further contends that the
relevant factor to be taken into consideration is the neighbourhood of
the fishery and not area of operation, therefore, the area of operation
determined earlier shall not disentitleM/s Karha to participate in the
tender process and get the settlement, if the said society is within the
neighbourhood of the fishery in question.
16. While adopting the argument of Ms. Das, learned State
Counsel, Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel for the private respondent, also
contends that there is no illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch
as,M/s Parghat has failed to submit its bid in terms of the tender
condition and the authorities cannot be faulted with for the rejection
of itsbid. She further contends that the price offered by M/s Karha
society cannot be said to be predatory pricing, inasmuch as, for the
last five years, since the date of settlement, the society has not
defaulted in any payment. It is her further contention that the issues
raised as regards the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court
is relatable to the area of operation only and it no way deals with the
neighbourhood of M/s Karha to the fishery in question.
17. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced
by the learned counsels for the parties.
18. Let this Court first deal with the argument of Mr. Chowdhury,
as regards the area of operation/neighbourhood of M/s Karha. Clause
Page No.# 13/16
2 of the terms and conditions of the NIT,being relevant, is translated
and extracted below:
That all the tenderers, i.e., fisherman co-operative society/self help
group/NGO will have to submit a Neighbourhood Certificate from the
Circle Officer. In case, the Min Mahal falls under two Revenue Circles,
then the certificates have to be obtained from the Circle Officers of
both the Revenue Circles and submit the same.
19. The issue of neighbourhood in the context of proviso to Rule
12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, was settled in Brahmaputra
Par-II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. the State of
Assam and Ors. reported in (2003) 1 GLR 528 and it was held
that it is a provision to ameliorate the socio economic conditions of
the fishing population residing in theneighbourhood of the fishery
concerned. It was also held that neighbourhood should not be
interpreted in terms of inches, feet and yards and a more pragmatic
and purposive interpretation is to be given. It was clarified that
neighbourhood does not express any definite idea of distance.
20. By now, it is well settled that ‘neighbourhood’, and “area of
operation” are distinctive concepts. In the considered opinion of this
Court, ‘neighbourhood’ shall mean the area, where the eligible
individuals or groups, i.e., fisherman or fishing societies reside and
are eligible to participate in the settlement of a fishery and the “area
of operation”, shall mean the specific location, where the fishery is
physically situated and where the fishing activities are conducted.
Page No.# 14/16
21. Having said so, this Court is having no hesitation in its mind
that what was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court is equitable division
of area of operation of the earlier fishery and accordingly, two areas
of operation of the earlier fishery were created, i.e., Karha Part-I
fishery and Karha Part-II fishery and therefore, such creation of area
of operation, shall not necessarily mean determination
neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is to be determined and accepted
as per Clause 2 of the NIT in question and not on the basis of the
determination of the area of operation of the two fisheries made in
terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. For the
same reason, the Experience Certificate shall also be in terms of the
certificate required under the terms of the NIT and there cannot be a
perpetual presumption that all the members of the society are actual
fishermen and having fishing experience,only for the reason that in
terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Civil Appeal Nos.
1674-75 of 1999,the area of operation was defined. As held in
RaidakBurarchora Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State
of Assam & others reported in (2018) 2 GLR 19, it is incumbent
upon the respondent authority to make such enquiry to reach the
satisfaction that not only the most deserving group is given the
settlement, but also to ensure that the government revenue is
adequately protected Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr.
Chowdhury, in this regard, stand negated.
22. It is an admitted position that under Clause 3 of the NIT, a
certificate from the District Fishery Development Officer is required to
be submitted, having a certification that all the members of the
Page No.# 15/16
society are actual fishermen and that they have fishing experience.
Admittedly, the certificate submitted by M/s Parghat, lacks the
certification that all the members have fishing experience. It is by
now well settled that the tenderer having authored the tender
document is the best authority to understand and appreciate its
requirement and interpretate its documents and the
constitutionalCourt must defer to such understanding and
appreciation of tender documents, except where there is malafide
and perversity in the understanding or appreciation and application of
the terms and conditions. In the case in hand, the requirement of
Clause 3 also is in conformity and as per the prescription of the
Assam Fishery Act, 1953. When admittedly, such a certificate
submitted by M/s Parghat, does not fulfil the requirement of such
tender condition, this Court should not find fault with the authorities
in rejecting the tender of M/s Parghat; it cannot be said that the
rejection of the tender of M/s Parghatis unjustified. Similarly, the
rejection of tender of M/s Karhapariya, more particularly, for not
having last three years of audited balance sheets, cannot also be
faulted with, more particularly, when admittedly, the society did not
fulfill such condition.
23. As held in RaidakBurarchora(supra), it is the responsibility of
the authority to make an enquiry as regards the neighbourhood. That
being the position, the challenge made to the order dated
28.07.2022, in WP(C) No. 6026/2022, in the absence of any
perversity or arbitrariness,cannot be lightly interfered with only on the
ground that the area of operation was already determined.
Page No.# 16/16
24. In view of the determination made hereinabove, the
arguments on the predatory pricing and the distributive justice,
remain no more relevant, inasmuch as, it is not disputed by the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chowdhury, that there is
no default on the part of M/s Karha during the pendency of this writ
petition, though he argues that it is only for the reason of pendency
of this writ petition, M/s Karha paid the Kistsin time.
25. The judgments placed by Mr. Chowdhury, in the considered
opinion of this Court, are not relevant for the determination.
26. Accordingly, for the discussions made hereinabove and the
reasons recorded, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions.
The writ petitions stand dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant