Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010019382025 2025:GAU-AS:5161 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/869/2025 RADHE CHANDRA DAS S/O- GENDU RAM DAS, R/O- VILL.- PALAHORTOL, REVENUE VILLAGE BARADI, P.O. BARADI, P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, PIN- 781301. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIST.-BARPETA ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 5:THE REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES DISPUR GUWAHATI. 6:GOPAL CHANDRA DAS S/O- MADHU SARKAR R/O- JONIA CHELIKURA DIST. BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P CHAKRABORTY, MS. A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S KATAKI, (R-6),MR P DEKA, (R-6),SC, FISHERY Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 29.04.2025 Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Also heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 and Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent No. 6 has been settled with the 79 No. Chatla Fishery under the Kolgasia Revenue Circle for a period of 7 years, pursuant to the NIT dated 01.10.2024, wherein the respondent No. 6’s bid was the highest and the petitioner’s bid was the second highest. 3. The petitioner’s case is that as the respondent No. 6 is a defaulter with respect to the settlement of the Balaisuti Group Fishery, as has been reflected in the RTI reply dated 21.08.2024 issued by the Addl. District Commissioner (Fishery), Barpeta, the respondent No. 6 could not have been settled with the 79 No. Chatla Fishery, pursuant to the NIT dated 01.10.2024. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the petitioner had come to this Court earlier, vide WP(C) 6787/2024 on the same ground, this Court had disposed of WP(C) 6787/2024 on the first day itself, without the presence of the respondent No. 6, by directing the Circle Officer, Barpeta to decide whether the respondent No. 6 was a defaulter, as has been alleged by the petitioner before finalizing the tender. Page No.# 3/5 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Fishery) has issued the order dated 30.12.2024, pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in WP(C) 6787/2024, holding that Gopal Das @ Gopal Sarkar cannot be considered as a defaulter, the respondent No. 6 Gopal Chandra Das is a defaulter. 6. Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, at the outset, submits that the 79 No. Chatla Fishery has been settled with Gopal Sarkar and not with Gopal Chandra Das. He accordingly submits that Gopal Sarkar and Gopal Chandra Das are two different persons. He also submits that a mistake appears to have been made in the order dated 30.12.2024 by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Fishery), pursuant to the order passed in WP(C) 6787/2024, in view of the fact that the petitioner herein has also reflected the respondent No. 6 in the earlier writ petition as Gopal Chandra Das, while the fishery in question has been settled with Gopal Sarkar and not Gopal Chandra Das. 7. Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 has produced the records and the same shows that one Gopal Chandra Das was the highest bidder, pursuant to the NIT dated 19.11.2016, as reflected in the note sheet dated 23.12.2023, for settlement of the fishery for 7 years, w.e.f. 2016 onwards. However, as Gopal Chandra Das had not submitted his earnest money, the tender of Gopal Chandra Das had been rejected by the authority. He submits that Gopal Sarkar and Gopal Chandra Das are altogether two different persons and as such, the respondent No. 6 herein, who is Gopal Sarkar, cannot be said to be a defaulter. 8. The counsels for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6 submit that as the petitioner Page No.# 4/5 had not submitted his earnest money along with his tender and as such, the tender papers of the petitioner has been rejected. As such, the petitioner has got no locus-standi to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The above being said, as it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not submitted his earnest money, the petitioner’s tender had been rejected by the respondent authorities. 11. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, the Supreme Court has held that the award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision, commercial considerations are of paramount importance. 12. The judgment of the Supreme Court in TATA Motors Limited Vs. the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3897/2023 was made in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced. As the petitioner’s tender has been rejected, the petitioner does not have the locus standi to the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer. 13. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6 that Gopal Sarkar and Gopal Chandra Das are two different persons and there being Page No.# 5/5 nothing to show in the record that Gopal Sarkar was a defaulter with respect to Balaisuti Group Fishery, this Court is of the view that no case for interference with the settlement of 79 No. Chatla Fishery with Gopal Sarkar has been made out. In fact, Gopal Sarkar has not even been made a party in this writ petition, though it has been alleged by the petitioner’s counsel that Gopal Sarkar and Gopal Chandra Das are the same persons. Even if this Court is to accept the stand of the petitioner’s counsel, the same would require the leading of evidence in a civil Court, so as to decide the disputed question of fact. However, in the view of this Court, there is nothing to show that Gopal Sarkar and Gopal Chandra Das are the same person. 14. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court with his grievance, if so advised. In the event the petitioner approaches the Civil Court, the findings and observations made by this Court shall not influence the decision to be taken by the Civil Court on merit. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant