JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers :- In the premises aforesaid, it is prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why : [i] a writ of certiorari shall not be issued by setting aside the impugned letter dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.; whereby, the Baiya Beel Fishery in the district of Hailakandi was settled in favour of the respondent no. 6 for a period of 7 years from the financial year 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 pursuant to the impugned tender process initiated by the Re-Tender Notice No. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited; [ii] a writ of certiorari shall not be issued by setting aside the impugned Deed of Agreement of Fishery Management under the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. dated 09.11.2022 executed between the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and the respondent no. 6 for fishing upon the total land measuring 20.00 hector in the aforesaid Baiya Beel Fishery from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2029. [iii] a writ of certiorari shall not be issued by setting aside the impugned Order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.; inasmuch as thereby the settlement order dated 13.08.2021 of the fishery with the petitioner society pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 02/2021 dated 12.02.2021 was recalled; [iv] a writ of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities, more particularly the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., to give effect to the settlement order dated 13.08.2021 of the fishery with the petitioner without requiring any bank guarantee pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 02/2021 dated 12.02.2021 by executing the necessary deed of agreement. 2. The petitioner no. 1 is a registered fishery cooperative society comprised of fishermen and the petitioner no. 2 is its chairman. For the purpose of easy reference, they would henceforth be referred to as the petitioner or the petitioner society, for ease of reference. 3. From the prayers, quoted above, it transpires that the petitioner society has assailed an Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 is its chairman. For the purpose of easy reference, they would henceforth be referred to as the petitioner or the petitioner society, for ease of reference. 3. From the prayers, quoted above, it transpires that the petitioner society has assailed an Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby a Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner society settling a fishery, Baiya Beel Fishery [‘the Fishery’, for short] pursuant to a Tender Notice no. 02/2021 dated 12.02.2021 had been recalled. The petitioner society has also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities in the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation [AFDC] Ltd. to give effect to the Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 without requiring the petitioner society to deposit any bank guarantee and by executing the necessary contract agreement. The petitioner society has also sought for setting aside of an Order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 granting settlement of the Fishery in favour of the respondent no. 6 for a period of seven years from the Financial Year : 2022 – 2023 up to the Financial Year 2028-2029. The petitioner society has also sought setting aside of the Deed of Agreement which the respondent no. 2 had entered into with the respondent no. 6 pursuant to the Settlement Order dated 04.11.2022. 4. As there are prior and relevant events leading to the challenges made above and a nos. of litigations in the form of writ petitions initiated by the petitioner herein and other parties, it would be apposite to refer to those events and litigations at first as they are relevant to deal with the issues raised and involved in this writ petition. 5. On 12.02.2021, a Tender Notice no. 02/2021 was published by the respondent no. 2 as the Tendering/Settling Authority inviting bids from eligible and interested bidders for settlement of four nos. of fisheries including the fishery named Baiya Beel Fishery [‘the Fishery’]. In the Tender Notice, the minimum annual revenue for the Fishery was fixed at Rs. 2,17,400/-. In response, four bidders including the petitioner society submitted their bids. The bids submitted by the four bidders along with the bid values offered by them were evaluated by the Tendering/Settling Authority. One of the bidders, namely, M/s Ambedkar Pisciculture Co-operative Society withdrew their bid in the mid- way during the tender process on 17.07.2021 despite having offered the highest bid value. The bids submitted by the four bidders along with the bid values offered by them were evaluated by the Tendering/Settling Authority. One of the bidders, namely, M/s Ambedkar Pisciculture Co-operative Society withdrew their bid in the mid- way during the tender process on 17.07.2021 despite having offered the highest bid value. After withdrawal of the highest bidder from the fray, the petitioner society emerged as the highest bidder. Upon evaluation of the bid documents of the petitioner society and examining a complaint lodged by another bidder viz. Sri Sahabuddin, the Tendering/Settling Authority on 13.08.2021 passed an Order of Settlement in favour of the petitioner society, after finding the complaint lodged by Sri Sahabuddin as a baseless one. 6. Holding the petitioner society as the highest valid bidder, the Tendering/Settling Authority settled the Fishery in its favour by the afore- mentioned Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 at its total offered bid value of Rs. 24,71,000/- for the settlement period of seven years. The Tendering/Settling Authority while settling the Fishery had further observed in the Settlement Order that as there were lot of complaints against the petitioner society, the Tendering/Settling Authority had felt it necessary to direct the petitioner society to submit bank guarantee equal to the revenue of the Fishery for the settlement period of seven years within a period of fifteen days before execution of the contract agreement for preventing loss of revenue to the AFDC Ltd. 7. Aggrieved by the direction to submit the bank guarantee equal to the bid value for the settlement period of seven years to allow the petitioner society to operate the Fishery as a condition precedent, the petitioner society submitted a Representation before the Tendering/Settling Authority, that is, the respondent no. 2 on 28.09.2021. In the Representation, the respondent no. 2 was requested to revisit the Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 in so far as the direction regarding submission of bank guarantee was concerned. It was represented that such a condition could not have been imposed in reference to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice. 8. As the petitioner society found that its Representation was not disposed of, it approached this court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 raising an apprehension that due to non-submission of the bank guarantee towards settlement, the Settlement Order passed earlier in its favour might be cancelled. 8. As the petitioner society found that its Representation was not disposed of, it approached this court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 raising an apprehension that due to non-submission of the bank guarantee towards settlement, the Settlement Order passed earlier in its favour might be cancelled. This court while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim order on 29.10.2021 directing that till the returnable date [22.11.2021], the parties to the proceeding shall maintain status quo, as obtaining on 29.10.2021. As a result of the interim order, the respondent authorities in the AFDC Ltd., more particularly, the Tendering/Settling Authority was, in essence, prevented also from passing any final order on the Representation dated 28.09.2021. 9. The other bidder, Sri Sahabuddin whose bid value was next below the bid value offered by the petitioner society, aggrieved by the Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 had, in the meantime, instituted a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5920/2021 wherein the petitioner society was impleaded as party-respondent no. 6. This Court on 10.11.2021, issued notice to the respondents making the notice also returnable on 22.11.2021. 10. In spite of the fact that the interim order dated 29.10.2021 passed in W.P. [C] no. 5606/2021 was in operation, the Tendering/Settling Authority passed an Order on 08.04.2022 upon consideration of the Representation dated 28.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner society. By the Order dated 08.04.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority had observed that the condition of bank guarantee was not a part of the tender conditions and therefore, the said condition was recalled. However, at the same time, the Tendering/Settling Authority had reached a view that the Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021 was not issued by taking into account the principle of commercial prudence as the petitioner society as the second highest bidder quoted a bid value much lower than the highest bidder, who subsequently withdrew the bid. It was, thus, observed that resultantly, the revenue to be received by the AFDC Ltd. would be on the lesser side. Observing so, the Tendering/Settling Authority cancelled the Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021, which was passed after conclusion of a tender process initiated vide Tender Notice No. 02/2021 dated 12.02.2021. Vide the Order dated 08.04.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority had directed for issuance of a fresh tender notice for settlement of the Fishery. 11. After the Order dated 08.04.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority had issued a Re-Tender Notice no. Vide the Order dated 08.04.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority had directed for issuance of a fresh tender notice for settlement of the Fishery. 11. After the Order dated 08.04.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority had issued a Re-Tender Notice no. 05/2022 on 22.06.2022 inviting bids for settlement of the Fishery afresh. However, the said Re-Tender Notice was subsequently withdrawn. Yet again on 10.08.2022, another Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 was issued. But, the same was also withdrawn subsequently. 12. On 19.09.2022, the Tendering/Settling Authority issued a Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 inviting bids again for settlement of the Fishery for a period of seven years from the Financial Year : 2022 – 2023 to the end of the Financial Year : 2028 – 2029. In the Re-Tender Notice No. 14/2022, bids for settlement of ten other fisheries were also invited. In so far as Baiya Beel Fishery is concerned, the Tendering/Settling Authority fixed the minimum annual revenue at Rs. 3,88,300/-. 13. In the meantime, the unsuccessful bidder, Sri Sahabuddin preferred two writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 4122/2022 and W.P.[C] no. 5552/2022. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4122/2022 was preferred challenging Re-Tender Notice no. 05/2022 dated 22.06.2022 whereas the other writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5552/2022 was preferred to assail Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 dated 10.08.2022. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4122/2022 came up for consideration on 30.06.2022, the Court taking into consideration that similar writ petitions were pending with issues related to the same Fishery, issued notice to the respondents, making the notice returnable on 20.07.2022. The Court further directed to list the writ petition along with the other similar writ petitions. 14. When the other writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5552/2022 came up for consideration before the Court on 31.08.2022, it was apprised to the Court that in respect of the Fishery, an interim order was operating. While issuing notice, the Court on 31.08.2022 had observed, in the interim, that the respondent Tendering/Settling Authority could go ahead with the tender process initiated vide Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 dated 10.08.2022 but the same should not be finalized without the leave of the Court. As mentioned above, Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 was also withdrawn subsequently. 15. Pursuant to initiation of the tender process vide Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022, the respondent no. 6 submitted his bid offering a total bid value of Rs. 25,23,600/- for settlement of the Fishery. After evaluation, the Tender Committee adjudged the respondent no. As mentioned above, Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 was also withdrawn subsequently. 15. Pursuant to initiation of the tender process vide Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022, the respondent no. 6 submitted his bid offering a total bid value of Rs. 25,23,600/- for settlement of the Fishery. After evaluation, the Tender Committee adjudged the respondent no. 6 as a valid bidder. The settlement of the Fishery in favour of the respondent no. 6 was made vide the Settlement Order dated 04.11.2022 by the Tendering/Settling Authority at the total bid value offered by the respondent no. 6. In the proposal, it was mentioned that the respondent no. 6 should execute the Contract Agreement within a period of ten days therefrom, else, the proposal for settlement would be treated as cancelled. Thereafter, the Contract Agreement came to be executed between the respondent no. 2 as the Tendering/Settling Authority and the respondent no. 6 as the settlement holder on 09.11.2022 for settlement of the Fishery for a period of seven years from 2022-2023 [partly] to 2028-2029 at a total bid value of Rs. 25,23,600/-. 16. On 21.12.2022, three writ petitions, [i] W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021, preferred by the petitioner Society; and [ii] W.P.[C] no. 4122/2022; & [iii] W.P.[C] no. 5552/2022, both preferred by Sri Sahabuddin, were listed before the Court. From the Order dated 21.12.2022, it is discernible that the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AFDC Ltd. authorities had submitted in unison that they were in agreement that the principal grievances raised in the three writ petitions with regard to the consideration of representations had been redressed. The learned counsel for the parties were also found to be in agreement that a new development had taken place in the form of floating of a new tender process. Having so apprised the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitions could be closed, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the new process, if so advised. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC. Learned counsel representing the present respondent no. 6 was also in attendance to press an interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 3729/2022 which was preferred seeking his impleadment as an interested party-respondent in one of those writ petitions. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC. Learned counsel representing the present respondent no. 6 was also in attendance to press an interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 3729/2022 which was preferred seeking his impleadment as an interested party-respondent in one of those writ petitions. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners for closure of the three writ petitions, the interlocutory application, I.A.[Civil] no. 3729/2022 was not pressed. 17. Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court by an Order dated 21.12.2022 closed the three writ petitions as being infructuous. The court had, however, observed that the parties would be at liberty to challenge the new development in the form of initiation of a fresh tender process. On 21.12.2021, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5920/2021 was also dismissed as infructuous. 18. It is in the above background, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, already mentioned herein above, are required to be examined. 19. I have heard Mr. H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation [AFDC] Limited for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 5; and Mr. A.S. Tapader, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 20. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that after the Order dated 21.12.2022 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 preferred earlier by the writ petitioners herein, the present writ petition has been preferred assailing the tender process initiated by Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 as well as the arbitrary action adopted by the Tendering/Settling Authority in passing the Order dated 08.04.2022. He has contended that the respondent no. 6 does not belong to the fishermen community and he is not a fisherman. As such, the settlement of the Fishery in favour of the respondent no. 6 is clearly illegal and impermissible. He has further contended that the Order dated 08.04.2022 was passed when the interim direction made in the Order dated 29.10.2021 was in currency. Therefore, the Order of cancellation of settlement of the Fishery had no validity and the Order dated 08.04.2022 being invalid, the same is liable to be set aside. 6 is clearly illegal and impermissible. He has further contended that the Order dated 08.04.2022 was passed when the interim direction made in the Order dated 29.10.2021 was in currency. Therefore, the Order of cancellation of settlement of the Fishery had no validity and the Order dated 08.04.2022 being invalid, the same is liable to be set aside. In the event the Order dated 08.04.2022 is set aside, the Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021 would revive and the respondent authorities are to be directed to allow the petitioner society to operate the Fishery in terms of the said Order of Settlement. It is his contention that the Order of Settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 6 is liable to be set aside as in the bidding process initiated by the Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 he was the lone bidder and the Tendering/Settling Authority could not have settled the Fishery in an arbitrary manner at a lower price in favour of the lone bidder. Therefore, the Settlement Order dated 04.11.2022 and the Contract Agreement dated 09.11.2022 are also liable to be interfered with. 21. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. representing the respondent no. 1 - 4 has submitted that the order of status quo passed on 29.10.2021 might have survived till 21.12.2022. After 21.12.2022, the interim direction lost its force. The petitioner society had itself made submission before the Court on 21.12.2022 that its grievance had been redressed and the subject- matter of challenge in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 had become infructuous. The petitioner society had sought liberty to challenge the new process only, which evidently was the tender process started by Re-Tender Notice dated 19.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner society by filing the present writ petition could not have mounted a challenge to the Order dated 08.04.2022. It is his further contention that the petitioner society having not participated in the bidding process initiated by Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022, could not challenge the selection of the respondent no. 6 as the settlement holder of the Fishery. He has, thus, contended that the writ petition lacks merit. 22. Ms. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5 has supported the submissions made by Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. 23. Mr. Tapader, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted in similar lines with Mr. He has, thus, contended that the writ petition lacks merit. 22. Ms. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5 has supported the submissions made by Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. 23. Mr. Tapader, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted in similar lines with Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. Mr. Tapader has further contended that any interim order passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 could have been in operation only till 21.12.2022. With the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 having been rendered infructuous on 21.12.2022, the interim order, if any, stood merged as infructuous with such final order. The petitioner society had, at no point of time, made a challenge to the Order dated 08.04.2022. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 was preferred only on apprehension that the Tendering/Settling Authority would take an adverse action on the Representation filed by the petitioner society seeking exemption from depositing bank guarantee. Now, at such distant point of time, the petitioner society is not permitted to make a challenge to the Order dated 08.04.2022 whereby the settlement of the Fishery made in its favour had long been cancelled. Furthermore, the petitioner society's challenge to the bidding process is not maintainable as it did not submit its bid in response to Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022. As it was not a participant bidder, the settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 6 cannot be challenged by the petitioner society. Furthermore, the respondent no. 6 after being granted settlement on 04.11.2022 and entering into a Contract Agreement on 09.11.2022, took possession of the Fishery and has been operating the Fishery for the last more than three years after making huge investment and without any complaint from any quarter. On such count also, no interference is called for. 24. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. In addition, the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. has also produced the relevant records of all the concerned settlement processes. 25. 24. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. In addition, the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC Ltd. has also produced the relevant records of all the concerned settlement processes. 25. In addition to the facts already narrated above in the preceding paragraphs, it is noticed that by the Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021, the petitioner society was settled with the Fishery for a period of seven years from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2029. While granting the settlement, the petitioner society was also directed to submit bank guarantee equal to the revenue of seven years for the Fishery within a period of fifteen days before executing the Contract Agreement for the Fishery. 26. In Clause 10.1 of the Tender Notice no. 2/2021, it was provided that the bid of the highest valid bidder would be accepted and those bids with bid value lesser than the revenue fixed for the Fishery would not be accepted. A condition was laid down to the effect that the bidder offering revenue more than three times the minimum amount of annual revenue fixed by the AFDC Ltd. shall have to provide bank guarantee/fixed deposit receipt [FDR] from a nationalized bank for the additional amount beyond three times the minimum revenue before taking possession of the Fishery by executing a deed of settlement. The bid value offered by the petitioner society for seven years @ Rs. 24,71,000/- was lesser than three times the minimum revenue fixed for the Fishery. Therefore, the finding recorded in the Order dated 08.04.2022 to the extent that the condition of depositing bank guarantee while settling the Fishery vide Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021 could not have been incorporated as it was not in conformity with any condition was correct. It needs iteration that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 was preferred on an apprehension that an adverse order would be passed on the Representation submitted by the petitioner society on 28.09.2021 seeking exemption of the condition of depositing bank guarantee. By the Order dated 08.04.2022, the apprehension of the petitioner society on bank guarantee was clearly allayed. 27. It needs iteration that the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 was preferred on an apprehension that an adverse order would be passed on the Representation submitted by the petitioner society on 28.09.2021 seeking exemption of the condition of depositing bank guarantee. By the Order dated 08.04.2022, the apprehension of the petitioner society on bank guarantee was clearly allayed. 27. As an interim order of maintaining status quo, as on 29.10.2021, was in currency at the point of time the Order dated 08.04.2022 was passed, it could have been agitated that the Order dated 08.04.2022 was passed in violation of the status quo order. However, the petitioner society, despite being aware of the Order dated 08.04.2022, did not make any challenge to the Order dated 08.04.2022 till filing of the present writ petition. When Re-Tender Notice no. 05/2022 and Re-Tender Notice no. 10/2022 were published on 22.06.2022 and 10.08.2022 respectively, those were also not challenged by the petitioner society. Those two Re-Tender Notices were issued for settlement of the Fishery after cancellation of the Settlement Order dated 13.08.2021 by the Order dated 08.04.2022. 28. On 21.12.2022 when the three writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021, W.P. [C] no. 4122/2022 & W.P.[C] no. 5552/2022 were held to be rendered infructuous with the consensus of the learned counsel for all the parties, the order to maintain status quo was in currency. Conspicuously, the petitioner society had represented before the Court that the principal grievance raised in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 with regard to consideration of Representation had been redressed and new development had taken place in the form of a new tender process. It was on the prayer of the petitioner society, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the new process, if so advised. 29. If in a pending writ petition, an interim order to maintain status quo by the parties is passed pending disposal of the writ petition, then such an interim order would survive till the disposal of the writ petition. If ultimately, the writ petition is held to be infructuous, then the interim order like a direction to maintain status quo, would not survive thereafter. An interim order always merges with the final order. The petitioner society was right in making submission that the apprehension expressed by it in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. If ultimately, the writ petition is held to be infructuous, then the interim order like a direction to maintain status quo, would not survive thereafter. An interim order always merges with the final order. The petitioner society was right in making submission that the apprehension expressed by it in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 regarding the possibility of passing an adverse order on its Representation dated 28.09.2021 seeking exemption from submitting bank guarantee had been redressed and therefore, there was no further cause of action for the petitioner society to pursue the writ petition on that count. But at the same time, with the passing of the Order dated 21.12.2022, the bar, if any, to settle the Fishery in favour of the highest valid bidder pursuant to Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022 also stood removed and it was made open for the Tendering/Settling Authority to proceed for settlement of the Fishery in favour of a valid bidder as by the Order dated 21.12.2022, Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 and the tender process initiated pursuant thereto were not affected in any manner. 30. No challenge made to the Order dated 08.04.2022 by the petitioner society till that date despite being conscious of the fact that the Order of Settlement dated 13.08.2021 had been cancelled by the Order dated 08.04.2022. Thereafter, two Re-Tender Notices were also published on 22.06.2022 and 10.08.2022 respectively for settlement of the Fishery. The petitioner society could not have mounted a challenge to the Order dated 08.04.2022 in the present writ petition for the reason that while admitting to the fact that its previous writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5606/2021 had been rendered infructuous, the petitioner society did not seek any liberty to assail the Order dated 08.04.2022. The petitioner society had only sought liberty to challenge the new process, if so advised. The new process was the tender process initiated by Re- Tender Notice no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022. Having sought such limited liberty, the Court in its Order dated 21.12.2022 had observed that the petitioner society would be at liberty to challenge the new development by which a fresh tender process had been initiated. By seeking liberty in that manner, the petitioner society had itself waived the right, if any, to challenge the Order dated 08.04.2022. 31. Having sought such limited liberty, the Court in its Order dated 21.12.2022 had observed that the petitioner society would be at liberty to challenge the new development by which a fresh tender process had been initiated. By seeking liberty in that manner, the petitioner society had itself waived the right, if any, to challenge the Order dated 08.04.2022. 31. It has been observed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jaswant Singh and another , [2006] 11 SCC 464 , that acquiescence does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the person has become aware of it. It is unjust to give such a person a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. 32. The doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance [Ref : Chairman, State Bank of India vs. M.J. James , [2022] 2 SCC 301 ]. 33. 33. When the fact situation obtaining in the case is examined qua the doctrine of acquiescence, it is evident that the petitioner society had allowed the Tendering/Settling Authority to proceed further, to settle the Fishery by publishing Re-Tender Notices on 22.06.2022, 10.08.2022 and 19.09.2022 without making any objection to such actions, despite having knowledge of such actions against the backdrop of refusal to settle the Fishery in its favour by the Order dated 08.04.2022. Despite having adequate knowledge of such actions and instead of making any protest or raising any issue as regards such refusal, the petitioner society is found to have allowed the matter to continue. It clearly demonstrates of a situation of acceptance and assent. As a result of such inaction on the part of the petitioner society the other parties had proceeded further with the matter of settlement of the Fishery. The doctrine of acquiescence is clearly applicable in the case in hand as the petitioner having a right stood by, without making any protest or raising any issue and allowed the Tendering/Settling Authority to proceed further with the settlement of the Fishery in a manner which was purported by in violation of the petitioner’s claim for settlement of the Fishery. 34. After the Order dated 08.04.2022 was passed, the petitioner society did not challenge it in any manner subsequently. The petitioner society did not also make any challenge to Re-Tender Notice no. 05/2022 dated 22.06.2022 and Re- Tender Notice no. 10/2022 dated 10.08.2022 whereby the Fishery was put to re-tender after cancelling the Order of Settlement passed in favour of the petitioner society. In such obtaining fact situation, the reliefs sought by the petitioner society in prayer [iii] and prayer [iv] cannot be allowed. 35. With the Order dated 08.04.2022 not under challenge till 21.12.2022 and the petitioner society having not submitted its bid for settlement of the Fishery in response to Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022, it is clear that it was not a participant bidder in the tender process initiated vide Re-Tender Notice No. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022. Had the petitioner society sought liberty from the Court to challenge the previous tender process initiated by the Tender Notice dated 12.02.2021 including the Order dated 08.04.2022 or its challenge as to legality and validity of the Order dated 08.04.2022 been pending, the situation might have been different. Had the petitioner society sought liberty from the Court to challenge the previous tender process initiated by the Tender Notice dated 12.02.2021 including the Order dated 08.04.2022 or its challenge as to legality and validity of the Order dated 08.04.2022 been pending, the situation might have been different. But none of the two situations is found to be present in the case in hand. 36. Therefore, the question that has arisen is whether the petitioner society having not participated in the tender process initiated by Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022, can make a challenge to any Order of Settlement granted to the respondent no. 6 after adjudging the bid of the respondent no. 6 as a valid bid upon evaluation. 37. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited , [2018] 8 SCC 243 , :- 20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent [claimant], the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no tittle of doubt that the right of the claimant [respondent] to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid [technical and financial]. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid [technical and financial]. The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfilment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever [Emphasis supplied in bold] 38. The petitioner society had opted not to challenge the tender process initiated by Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022. From a combined reading of Clause 10.1 and Clause 12.4, it is discernible that in the event a fishery is put to re-tender and only a valid bid is received, the Tendering/Settling Authority in the AFDC Ltd. has the discretion to consider it for acceptance. Upon receipt of the bid of the respondent no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022. From a combined reading of Clause 10.1 and Clause 12.4, it is discernible that in the event a fishery is put to re-tender and only a valid bid is received, the Tendering/Settling Authority in the AFDC Ltd. has the discretion to consider it for acceptance. Upon receipt of the bid of the respondent no. 6 as the only bid, the Bid Evaluation Committee having found the average annual revenue offered by the respondent no. 6 at Rs. 3,90,600/-, which was above the minimum annual revenue fixed at Rs. 3,88,300/-, accepted the same was a valid bid. The Bid Evaluation Committee also accepted the credential of the respondent no. 6 as fisherman. 39. Having not participated in the tender process initiated vide Re-Tender Notice no. 14/2022 dated 19.09.2022, it is not open for the petitioner society to make any challenge to the Order of Settlement made in respect of the Fishery in favour of the respondent no. 6 on 04.11.2022 and the Contract Agreement dated 09.11.2022. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the forms of prayer [i] and prayer [ii] also cannot be extended in such facts and circumstances. 40. In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons assigned therein, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merits. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.