JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. H Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. P Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘the AFDC’) and Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.1215/2023. 2. The two writ petitions are inter-related, and as such, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment & order. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions are that on 14.03.2022, the AFDC issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT), inviting bids for settlement of the Godadhar Meen Mahal in the District of Dhubri. 4. At the time of issuance of the said NIT, the minimum revenue which was fixed was Rs.15,89,372/-. Subsequent thereto, by the Corrigendum dated 22.03.2022, the minimum revenue was rectified and fixed at Rs.8,01,500/-. The petitioner being interested, participated in the said NIT and submitted a bid of Rs.1,19,00,000/- for a period of 7(seven) years. The petitioner was offered the settlement on 09.06.2022 and the petitioner was asked to deposit 25% of the revenue of the first year as security deposit and 25% of the revenue of the first year as first kist in the form of Demand Draft to be purchased in the name of “Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited” within 10 days from the receipt of the communication dated 09.06.2022. In addition to that, the petitioner was also asked to deposit a bank guarantee for the amount aforementioned before entering into the agreement. Subsequent thereto, a communication was issued by the Managing Director of the AFDC on 17.08.2022 stating inter alia, that in terms with the NIT No.1/2022 dated 14.03.2022, the minimum revenue was fixed at Rs.15,89,372/-, but in terms with the Corrigendum letter under reference, the earlier minimum revenue was rectified and fixed at Rs.8,01,500/-. The petitioner was, therefore, informed that the bank guarantee amount has been fixed at Rs.11,78,000/- and the petitioner was requested to enter into an agreement within 7(seven) days. 5. The petitioner was, therefore, informed that the bank guarantee amount has been fixed at Rs.11,78,000/- and the petitioner was requested to enter into an agreement within 7(seven) days. 5. It is further seen that admittedly the petitioner did not enter into agreement, and resultantly, in terms with the communication dated 21.12.2022, the offer of settlement made in favour of the petitioner in respect to Godadhar Meen Mahal, vide the communication dated 09.06.2022 was cancelled and the possession of the Godadhar Meen Mahal was taken back from the petitioner. The petitioner, though submitted certain representation, but the said representation was not considered. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation of the offer of settlement vide the communication dated 21.12.2022. The resultant effect is that on 16.12.2022, a new NIT being NIT No.20/2022 was published by the AFDC authorities in respect to the same Fishery i.e. Godadhar Meen Mahal in the district of Dhubri. 7. The petitioner submitted his bid along with various other bidders in pursuance to the NIT No.20/22 dated 16.12.2022. On 12.01.2023, a decision was taken by the respondent authorities to reject the technical bid of the petitioner in the Evaluation of Technical Bids meeting held on 12.01.2023. Thereupon, another notice was issued on 14.01.2023 by the Managing Director, AFDC, inviting technically qualified bidders to be present on 18.01.2023 for opening of the price bid in the conference hall of the AFDC at Guwahati. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17.01.2023 and sought for a copy of the comparative statement and the reasons for not calling him to be present for the opening of the price bid on 18.01.2023. 8. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the decision not to open the price bid of the petitioner as well as to reject the petitioner's technical bid was put to challenge in WP(C) No.315/2023. The said writ petition was filed on 18.01.2023, and this Court, vide an order dated 19.01.2023 issued notice. The interim directions which were being sought for, for staying the tender process was rejected by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.01.2023 and there was a direction upon the learned Standing Counsel of the AFDC to provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The interim directions which were being sought for, for staying the tender process was rejected by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.01.2023 and there was a direction upon the learned Standing Counsel of the AFDC to provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The record reveals that in the meantime, on 18.01.2023, the financial bid of the bidders were opened and the settlement of the Godadhar Meen Mahal was settled with the respondent No.6 for a period of 7 years vide the communication dated 09.02.2023. The said settlement order dated 09.02.2023 as well as the minutes of the meeting dated 12.01.2023 have been put to challenge in WP(C)No. 1215/2023. 10. The record further reveals that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 03.03.2023, issued notice and further observed that the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 11. The records also reveals that the respondent AFDC on numerous occasions since 03.03.2023 have sought for time to file their affidavit-in-opposition in both the writ petitions, but no affidavit-in-opposition was filed. 12. It is further seen that the respondent No.6 has filed an affidavit-in- opposition on 14.08.2023, whereby the decision of the respondent authorities to reject the technical bid of the petitioner on 12.01.2023, as well as the order dated 09.02.2023 by which, the settlement in favour of the respondent No.6 was made were supported. 13. The writ petition thereupon was listed before this Court on 24.04.2026, wherein inspite of a passage of 3(three) years, as the AFDC had not filed an affidavit-in-opposition, this Court fixed the instant writ petition for final disposal today and directed the learned Standing Counsel of the AFDC to produce the records. The records thereupon have been produced today. 14. From a perusal of the said records, there is no conflict with the statements so made in the pleadings made by the parties along with the documents. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the respondent authorities in the minutes of the meeting held on 12.01.2023 was justified in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid. 14. From a perusal of the said records, there is no conflict with the statements so made in the pleadings made by the parties along with the documents. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the respondent authorities in the minutes of the meeting held on 12.01.2023 was justified in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid. It is pertinent to observe that if the said decision is held to be in violation to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution i.e. arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair, the consequential settlement so made in favour of the respondent No.6 vide the settlement order dated 09.02.2023 would have to be interfered with. 15. Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 12.01.2023 which is enclosed as Annexure-12 of WP(C)No. 1215/2023, would show that the petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner who was selected as an H1 bidder for settlement of the Godadhar Meen Mahal under NIT No.1/2020 did not execute the agreement with the AFDC and surrendered the settlement order. Mr. H. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the reason for which the petitioner was held to be technically not qualified is not a term of the NIT in question by which the petitioner's bid could be held to be technically disqualified. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the terms and conditions of the NIT stipulates the various conditions of qualification for submission of the bid at Clause 2. A perusal of the said Clause 2 nowhere would show that if the bidder had not accepted the offer of settlement in the earlier round of tender, the petitioner's bid would be disqualified. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a further perusal of the entire NIT would show that there is no mention that if the offer of settlement is not accepted, it would amount to blacklisting. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what the respondents have done by rejecting the petitioner's technical bid is blacklisting the petitioner in respect to the present tender process without issuance of any notice, which is not permissible as per law. 16. This Court has heard Mr. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what the respondents have done by rejecting the petitioner's technical bid is blacklisting the petitioner in respect to the present tender process without issuance of any notice, which is not permissible as per law. 16. This Court has heard Mr. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the AFDC and enquired as to whether the NIT dated 16.12.2022 contained any Clause which debars a bidder from participation if the offer of settlement was cancelled/surrendered. Mr. P Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel of the AFDC fairly submitted that a perusal of the NIT dated 16.12.2022 do not mention any such terms. 17. Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner herein was offered the settlement on 09.06.2022 @ Rs.17 lakhs per annum, and the petitioner deposited as security the first kist of revenue in June 2022 against Rs.8.50 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner also was asked to submit the bank guarantee, which the petitioner had failed to do, and surrendered the fishery on 12.12.2022 without paying the further revenue and thus the petitioner was a defaulter. 18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 further submitted that Clause 2.9 of the NIT dated 16.12.2022, categorically mentions that no tender would be accepted, if the tenderer is a defaulter to the Corporation. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another , (2016) 16 SCC 818 and submitted that the owner or the employer is the best judge in interpreting or evaluating the terms of the tender and a constitutional Court should avoid interfering with such interpretation, unless it is mala fide or perverse. 19. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. A perusal of the NIT which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, would show that Clause 2 stipulates the various qualifying criteria for submission of the tender. A perusal of Clause 2.9 of the said NIT stipulates that if the tenderer is a defaulter, the tender would not be accepted in any way. 20. A perusal of the NIT which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, would show that Clause 2 stipulates the various qualifying criteria for submission of the tender. A perusal of Clause 2.9 of the said NIT stipulates that if the tenderer is a defaulter, the tender would not be accepted in any way. 20. A perusal of Clause 9 of the said NIT dated 16.12.2022 would show that the security deposit would be forfeited, if the selected tenderer denies to accept the offer of settlement. Clause 13 of the said NIT stipulates the manner of offer of settlement to the selected tenderer. A perusal of the said clause reveals that if the highest bidder in terms of Clause 2.8 of the said NIT is found to be in order and failed to accept the offer, the second highest bidder, if willing, can apply for settlement at the rate of the highest bidder. Else, the Corporation reserved the right to go for fresh tender. 21. In the backdrop of the above, the reasons assigned for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in the minutes of the meeting held on 12.01.2023 is quoted hereinunder: “………..The following 5 (five) Individuals/Society has submitted the bid documents for obtaining settlement of Gadadhar Beel, Dhubri. Accordingly Evaluation of the technical bid has done and observations are given as follows: TECHNICAL BID: Recommendations: Among the above 5 (five) bidder, 4 (four) bidder have found technically qualified and 1 (one) bidder Shri Thakur Das Barman have found disqualified as under NIT-1 he was selected as H-1 bidder for settlement of Gadadhar Beel. However he did not execute the agreement with AFDC Ltd. And surrender the settlement offer. Hence he is found invalid for participation in next tender. Hence, the Committee recommended for opening of Financial bid of 4 (four) technically qualified bidders accordingly. Sd/ (J. Saikia) Executive Engineer, AFDC Ltd (Member)” 22. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, as quoted hereinabove, is not a reason for which a bidder can be disqualified in terms with the NIT. Hence, the Committee recommended for opening of Financial bid of 4 (four) technically qualified bidders accordingly. Sd/ (J. Saikia) Executive Engineer, AFDC Ltd (Member)” 22. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, as quoted hereinabove, is not a reason for which a bidder can be disqualified in terms with the NIT. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6, though submitted that the petitioner can be said to be a defaulter by drawing certain analogy, but the same being not a reason which was acted upon by the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid, it is the opinion of this Court that the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 is misconceived. 23. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the NIT dated 16.12.2022 does not visualize rejection of a bid, if the offer of settlement in respect to the earlier tender process was surrendered and/or cancelled and in absence of such disqualifying clause in the NIT dated 16.12.2022, it is the opinion of this Court that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was unfair, arbitrary, and unreasonable, and thereby in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The minutes of the meeting dated 12.01.2023 insofar as the evaluation of the technical bids for lease of the Godadhar Meen Mahal, Dhubri is interfered with. (ii) As the technical evaluation carried out on 12.01.2023 in respect to the Godadhar Meen Mahal is being interfered with, the consequential settlement order made in favour of the respondent No.6 by the settlement order dated 09.02.2023 is also interfered with. (iii) The respondent authorities are given the liberty to take a decision afresh on the technical bid in respect to the NIT No.20/2022 dated 16.12.2022 in respect to the Godadhar Meen Mahal, or the respondent authorities may go for a fresh tender, if so advised. (iii) The respondent authorities are given the liberty to take a decision afresh on the technical bid in respect to the NIT No.20/2022 dated 16.12.2022 in respect to the Godadhar Meen Mahal, or the respondent authorities may go for a fresh tender, if so advised. (iv) Taking into account that the settlement order dated 09.02.2023 whereby the settlement made in favour of the respondent No.6 has been interfered with, the respondent No.6 would be at liberty to request the AFDC authorities for refund of the security deposit or other dues to which the respondent No.6 would be entitled to upon the setting aside of the settlement order dated 09.02.2023. (v) There shall be no order as to costs.