M/S Garomari Economic Development Society vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors

Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and Mr. N. C. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the Settlement Order dated 16.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Respondent No.5 thereby settling the No. 15/65 Gerua Kamarpota Fishery.

The brief facts of the instant case are that on 17.08.2024, a notice was issued inviting bids from the eligible bidders for settlement of No.15/65 Gerua Kamarpota Fishery (for short, “the fishery in question”). The said tender notice contained various terms and conditions. Clause 4(Ga) which upon being translated and certified by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, reads as under –

From a perusal of the comparative statement, it is seen that as many as five tenderers submitted their bids. The Petitioner was the second highest bidder quoting an amount of Rs.58,00,000/- (Rupees fifty eight lakh) for 7 (seven) years and the average being Rs.8,28,571/- (Rupees eight lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred seventy one). The Respondent No.5 was the fourth highest bidder having quoted Rs.42,77,000/- (Rupees forty two lakh seventy seven thousand) and the average bid per year was Rs. 6,11,000/- (Rupees six lakh eleven thousand). The bids of the first, second and third highest bidder were rejected by the Respondent No.2 and the settlement was made in favour of the Respondent No.5 who was the fourth highest bidder. The Petitioner being aggrieved, had submitted a representation. However, the said representation was not taken into consideration and it is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

The records reveal that when the petition was moved before this Court on 06.01.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court issued notice. However, taking into account that the Respondent No.5 had already taken the possession of the Fishery on 25.12.2024, the learned Coordinate Bench did not pass any interim directions.

The records further reveal that the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. However, the Respondent No.5 filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein, the Respondent No.5 supported the Settlement Order dated 16.12.2024. The Respondent No.5 also relied upon the comparative statement which was made the basis for grant of the settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.5.

In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that Clause 4(Ga) of the tender notice dated 17.08.2024 which have been already quoted herein above, stems from the requirement as set out in Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (for short “the Rules of 1953”) which stipulates that the Government shall settle a 60% category fishery with a special category of cooperative Societies, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Self-Help Groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighborhood of the fishery concerned by the Tender System.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Explanation 1 to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 makes it further clear that the words “special category” means and includes Cooperative Societies, Self-Help Groups, Non-Governmental Organizations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Scheduled Caste community or the Maimal community of the erstwhile Cachar district. The learned counsel therefore referring to Clause 4(Ga) of the tender notice dated 17.08.2024 submitted that the submission of the certificate of Scheduled Caste/Maimal Community was a mandatory requirement.

Referring to the comparative statement which have been enclosed to the writ petition and also relied upon by the Respondent No.5 in its affidavit, the learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to serial No.10 of the said comparative statement, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Respondent No. 5 did not submit the certificate regarding Scheduled Caste/Maimal Community of Barak Valley. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner therefore submitted that with a clear intention to grant the settlement in favour of the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.2 had mentioned in the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 that the Respondent No.5 had submitted all such documents. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case where such arbitrary and unreasonable actions on the part of the Respondents are required to be interfered with.

Mr. P. Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Fishery Department submitted that as to whether the Respondent No. 5 had submitted the Scheduled Caste Certificate as is required in terms with Clause 4 (Ga) of the tender notice dated 17.08.2024 can be found from the records. The learned Standing Counsel for the Fishery Department also submitted that the Petitioner in the instant case was registered only on 06.09.2024 and the last date for submission of the bid was on 09.09.2024 and therefore the Petitioner did not have the experience and could not have been taken into consideration in view of the mandate of the notification dated 18.01.2018 which required the fisherman experience certificate to be issued by the DFDO. The learned Standing Counsel further referring to Serial No. 6 of the comparative statement submitted that the Petitioner also did not submit the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies which was mandatory.

Mr. N. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 submitted that no doubt the individual certificate regarding Scheduled Caste was not submitted by the Respondent No. 5 as the same was not the requirement but from the certificate which have been issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, it is clear that the Respondent No. 5 society is 100% actual fishermen of Scheduled Caste community/Maimal Community of Barak Valley.

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given anxious consideration to their respective submissions.

A perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 makes it abundantly clear that the 60% category fishery has to be settled with special category of cooperative societies, Non-Government Organizations and Self-Help Groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighborhood of the fishery concerned by the tender system. The special category have been further explained in Explanation 1 to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 to mean Cooperative Societies, Self-Help Groups, Non-Governmental Organizations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Scheduled Caste community or Maimal community of the erstwhile Cachar district. In that regard, if this Court therefore now takes note of Clause 4(Ga) of the tender notice dated 17.08.2024 which have been reproduced hereinabove, it would show that a Cooperative Society, Self-Help Groups, NGOs, etc., consisting of members of the fishermen shall enclose a certificate of 100% actual fishermen to be issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Goalpara and the said certificate shall indicate that all members of the Cooperative Societies, Self-help Groups, NGOs, etc., are belonging to the SC community.

From the records, it is apparent that a certificate dated 06.09.2024 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Goalpara was submitted by the Respondent No.5, wherein it is categorically mentioned that as per the records available in the office, all members of the said Society are belonging to the category of Scheduled Caste community and they have experience in fishing activities. Taking into account the relevance of the said certificate dated 06.09.2024, the same is reproduced here in under –

In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the comparative statement at Serial No.6, this aspect has been duly taken note that the Respondent No.5 had submitted the said certificate. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 does not require individual certificates to be submitted. Furthermore, the certificate which has been issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies indicating therein that the members of Respondent No. 5 belong to the Scheduled Caste community, in the opinion of this Court was sufficient compliance to Clause 4 (Ga) of the tender notice.

In the backdrop of the above, if this Court now takes note of the bid of the Petitioner, it is seen that the Petitioner did not submit any such certificate. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the settlement so granted to the Respondent No.5 vide the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 cannot be said to be an arbitrary or an unreasonable exercise.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 for which the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost.