JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Ms. R. Kakati, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 and Ms. G. Bordoloi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8. None appears on behalf of the Cooperation Department on call. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation (for short ‘AFDC’) whereby the Borkona fishery in Barpeta District was settled in favour of the Respondent No.8 for a period of 7 (seven) years with effect from the financial year 2024-25 to 31.03.2031. The Petitioner has also sought for a further direction upon the Respondent AFDC to settle the Borkona Fishery in favour of the Petitioner for a period of 7 years in terms with Clause 11.4 of the Tender Form and Rule 13 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are narrated herein under: 4. AFDC floated a Notice Inviting Tender dated 22.08.2024 inviting bids for settlement of Borkona Fishery under Barpeta District by issuance of a press release. In terms with the tender documents, it was a two bid system i.e. a technical and financial bid. Various terms and conditions were mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 22.08.2024. The minimum annual settlement amount of the fishery in question was fixed as Rs.16,37,130/- and the last date of submission of the tender was fixed on 10.09.2024. Subsequently, the last date for submission of the bid was extended until 13.09.2024. 5. The Petitioner which is a Cooperative Society registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) submitted its bid along with 3 (three) other bidders. Pursuant to the submission of such bids, the technical evaluation was carried out on 26.09.2024 and all the bidders were found to be technically qualified. Subsequent thereto, on 30.12.2024, the financial bids were evaluated and the Petitioner’s bid was found to be the second highest after the Respondent No.8. Pursuant to the submission of such bids, the technical evaluation was carried out on 26.09.2024 and all the bidders were found to be technically qualified. Subsequent thereto, on 30.12.2024, the financial bids were evaluated and the Petitioner’s bid was found to be the second highest after the Respondent No.8. However, taking into consideration Clause 11.4 of the Notice Inviting Tender, the committee recommended for settlement of the fishery in question in favour of the Petitioner at the highest offered annual revenue of Rs.17,82,000/-, subject to the fulfillment of all the terms and conditions of the bid document and nullification of the complaints received against them. 6. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that there were certain allegations of fraud made against the Petitioner society vide a communication dated 29.10.2024. Subsequent thereto, vide a letter dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative societies of Barpeta District, it was found that there was no deceased person enlisted in the AGM for the year 2023-24 held on 07.07.2024. Subsequent thereto, a letter was issued on 27.11.2024 by 9 Board of Directors of the Petitioner Society before the AFDC stating inter alia that they have not authorized the President and the Secretary to participate in respect to the tender in question. 7. While the aforesaid aspects were going on, as there was a recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the AFDC to grant the settlement in favour of the Petitioner, a writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.8 before this Court, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6818/2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 18.12.2024. 8. It is very pertinent to take note of that in the said writ petition, the Respondent No.8 herein who was the Petitioner therein, took a stand that the Petitioner herein had violated Clause 6.6 and Clause 16 of the Notice Inviting Tender. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 18.12.2024 passed the following directions at Paragraph No.5 which is reproduced herein under: “ 5. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 18.12.2024 passed the following directions at Paragraph No.5 which is reproduced herein under: “ 5. In view of the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and keeping in view the letter dated 18.11.2024 issued by the Senior Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies, which is addressed to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Barpeta, this Court is of the view that as the final selection of the successful tenderer has not been made by the AFDC, the AFDC should look into the contents of the observations made by the Senior Inspector/Auditor of Cooperative Societies, vide letter dated 18.11.2024, which is addressed to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Barpeta (Annexure-E series). The AFDC should consequently take a decision with regard to the selection of the successful tenderer after considering the observations made in the said letter. Any decision to be made by the AFDC which could prejudice the respondent no.8, should be made, only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.8.” 9. A perusal of the above quoted directions reveal that that it was the opinion of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court that there was no decision taken as to who was finally selected as the successful tenderer by the AFDC and therefore, the AFDC was directed to look into the contents of the observations made by the Senior Inspector/Auditor of the Cooperative Societies in its letter dated 18.11.2024, which was addressed to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Barpeta. The AFDC was further directed to take a decision with regard to the selection of the successful tenderer after considering the observations made in the said letter. The learned Coordinate Bench had also observed that any decision which is to be taken by the AFDC should be taken by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner herein who was the Respondent No.8 in the said proceedings. 10. Before further proceeding to deal with the facts, it is very pertinent to observe that vide the order dated 18.12.2024, the concluded selection proceedings was re-opened with the specific direction to look into the eligibility of the Petitioner herein by taking into consideration the communication dated 18.11.2024. 11. 10. Before further proceeding to deal with the facts, it is very pertinent to observe that vide the order dated 18.12.2024, the concluded selection proceedings was re-opened with the specific direction to look into the eligibility of the Petitioner herein by taking into consideration the communication dated 18.11.2024. 11. The Respondent No.8 herein being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2024, preferred a Writ Appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court which was registered and numbered as W.A. No.1327/2025 (Filing Number) along with an application for condonation of delay which was registered and numbered as I.A. (Civil) No.383/2025. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 14.02.2025 while condoning the delay found that there was no merit in the said Writ Appeal and accordingly, dismissed the said Writ Appeal. In pursuance to the said order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the Managing Director of the AFDC passed the order dated 06.03.2025 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant proceedings. 12. The Petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 11.03.2025 whereby the Respondent No.8 was granted the settlement by the AFDC. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, notice was issued vide an order dated 04.04.2025. 13. The records further reveal that the Respondent No.8 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the impugned order dated 06.03.2025. It was categorically mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that in terms of Clause 6.6 of the Notice Inviting Tender, a copy of the Resolution passed in the General Meeting by which the society is authorized to submit the tender is required to be enclosed. It is also mentioned that Clause 6.6 further required that the society shall enclose a list of present members of the society. These mandatory conditions were however violated by the Petitioner society inasmuch as, the Petitioner had submitted a copy of the purported resolution which was not authenticated. It was also mentioned that not only the said resolution which was submitted was not authenticated but also did not bear the signature of the jurisdictional Inspector of Cooperative Society. 14. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have also filed an affidavit- in-opposition wherein the detailed facts which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 were mentioned. 14. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have also filed an affidavit- in-opposition wherein the detailed facts which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 were mentioned. The representation dated 27.11.2024 submitted by 9 (nine) Board of Directors of the Petitioner society was also enclosed as Annexure-B to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 15. The records further reveal that no affidavits-in-reply were filed by the Petitioner in pursuance to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the concerned Respondents. 16. This Court further takes note of the order dated 25.09.2025 wherein this Court had clearly formulated the issue involved in the instant proceedings to be as to whether the resolution which was submitted by the Petitioner along with its bid is in consonance with a resolution of the Cooperative Society recognizable in terms with the Act of 2007. This Court had also directed the Respondent AFDC to produce the records and in pursuance thereto, Mr. P. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the AFDC has produced the records. 17. The issue as stated above, is as to whether the resolution of the General Body Meeting of the Petitioner Society which was required to be submitted was at all submitted and if so, was it a resolution in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. 18. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record including the records which were produced by Mr. P. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel of the AFDC. 19. From a perusal of the records, it appears that the Notice Inviting Tender which was issued contained various terms and conditions. Clause 6 of the said Notice Inviting Tender is under the heading “Documents to be submitted with the tender”. The translated version of Clause 6.6 of the said Notice Inviting Tender reads as follows: “ 6.6. A copy of the resolution of the General Meeting of the Society (in case of Fisheries Co-operative Society/Fish Farmers Cooperative Society) shall be submitted in the case of grant of authority to tender. The committee shall attach a list of their existing members.” 20. A copy of the resolution of the General Meeting of the Society (in case of Fisheries Co-operative Society/Fish Farmers Cooperative Society) shall be submitted in the case of grant of authority to tender. The committee shall attach a list of their existing members.” 20. A perusal of the above quoted Clause reveal that there was a requirement of submission of a copy of the resolution of the General Meeting of the society in the case of Fisheries Cooperative Society/Fish Farmers Cooperative Society, in the case of grant of authority to tender. There was also a requirement of the said Committee to attach a list of their existing members. 21. This Court upon perusal of the materials on record finds that initially, all the 4 (four) bidders were held to be technically qualified in the Minutes of the evaluation of the technical bid held on 26.09.2024. Subsequent thereto, on 30.09.2024, the financial bids were opened and the Selection Committee had recommended that the Petitioner Society should be granted the contract in view of Clause 11.4 of the Notice Inviting Tender at the highest offered annual revenue of Rs.17,82,000/- subject to fulfillment of all the terms and conditions of the bid document and nullification of the complaints received against them. The aspect pertaining to the recommendation which was made makes it very clear that the settlement was subject to nullification of such complaints made against the Petitioner Society. The reason appears to be on account of the complaints which were being filed by the various members of the Petitioner Society on 29.10.2024 as well as the complaints submitted by the 9 (nine) Board of Directors on 27.11.2024. 22. This Court duly takes note of that the evaluation of both the technical bid and the financial bid was set at naught by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No.6818/2024 thereby directing the Respondent AFDC to again reconsider by taking into account the communication issued on 18.11.2024. The records and more particularly from a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. The records and more particularly from a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as well as the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 reveal that the Managing Director of the AFDC had duly taken into account various complaints including the allegations of non-compliance with Clause 6.6 of the Notice Inviting Tender by the Petitioner Society which was also a subject matter of WP(C) No. 6818/2024. A perusal of the impugned Speaking Order shows that the Managing Director of the AFDC while taking into consideration the Authority Letter dated 10.09.2024 which was submitted by the Petitioner in original, observed that the written signatures of 13 members are different in handwriting. It was also found that Sri Jaydev Das, the Secretary of the Petitioner society, had not submitted the list of members of the society as per Clause 6.6 of the NIT. It was held that the submission of the original copy of the Authority Letter and the non-submission of the list of members along with the tender bid vindicates the stand of the report of the Cooperative Society dated 29.11.2024. It was further observed that in terms of Section 45 of the Act of 2007, any meeting has to be as per the bylaws and the Registrar has to give approval of the same and in that case, the original copy of the Authority Letter which is shown as a part of the proceedings of a meeting held on 10.09.2024 cannot be enclosed along with the NIT, thereby giving the original copy casted a doubt on the bid document submitted by the Petitioner society. It is under such circumstances, it was held by the Managing Director of the AFDC that there was a violation to Clause 6.6 of the Notice Inviting Tender. 23. This Court has also perused the materials on record, and from a perusal of the materials on record and more particularly the tender which had been submitted by the Petitioner shows that the original copy of the resolution dated 10.09.2024 was annexed with the tender document. There was also no list of the members enclosed with the bid submitted by the Petitioner society. 24. The question therefore arises, in view of the submission so made by Mr. There was also no list of the members enclosed with the bid submitted by the Petitioner society. 24. The question therefore arises, in view of the submission so made by Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is as to whether the submission of the original resolution was sufficient in terms of Clause 6.6 of the Notice Inviting Tender. In the opinion of this Court, the said submission appears to be completely misconceived in view of Section 45 of the Act of 2007 which mandates that within 15 days of all General Meetings and Special General Meetings of every Cooperative Society, the resolution has to be sent to the Registrar from the date of completion of such meeting with due acknowledgement. The Registrar shall thereupon grant an approval on the resolution within 15 days of the receipt of the proceedings and if no approval is granted, the proceedings shall be deemed to be approved. The submission of the original copy along with the tender documents clearly shows that the said resolution was never sent to the Registrar of the Cooperative Society. 25. Under such circumstances, even if such resolution was taken in the Special General Body Meeting of the Petitioner Society, the same had no value inasmuch without the approval of the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, the said resolution cannot be relied upon as being a resolution granting the authority to submit the bid in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender. 26. Apart from that, the records clearly show that the petitioner has not submitted the list of members. Consequently, this Court does not find that the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Managing Director of the AFDC to be illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. Before concluding, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of a very feeble submission made by Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the order dated 06.03.2025 ought to have been passed by the AFDC and not by the Managing Director of the AFDC. The said submission has been made just for the purpose of being rejected inasmuch as the Managing Director, AFDC duly have the authority to pass orders for and on behalf of the AFDC. 28. The said submission has been made just for the purpose of being rejected inasmuch as the Managing Director, AFDC duly have the authority to pass orders for and on behalf of the AFDC. 28. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the instant proceedings for which the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 29. The records which have been produced before this Court by Mr. P. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel is returned.