JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Medhi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. I have also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 as well as Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8. PREFACE: 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging various reports as well as orders passed which led to the order dated 15.11.2022 and further seeking a direction that the Group No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery be settled with the Petitioner for a period of 7 (seven) years as the Petitioner was the valid highest bidder. 3. At the outset, it is very pertinent to take note of that the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, the Letter/Report No.DRF.5/2020/441-42 dated 29.09.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, the Speaking Order No.DRF5/2020 dated 14.09.2020 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, Report No.GRP(s)3/2019/339 dated 28.08.2020 have merged with the impugned order dated 15.11.2022. Under such circumstances, the issue involved in the present proceedings is as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2. BRIEF FACTS: 4. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 27.02.2020 for settlement of Group No.1/87 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-I and Satkuri Nadi Fishery (hereinafter referred to as the “fishery in question”) for the period from 2019-20 to 2025-26. The said Notice Inviting Tender stipulated various terms and conditions including the necessity of Bakijai Clearance Certificate to be obtained from the concerned Office of the Deputy Commissioner distinctly in the name of the society or self-help group. 5. The records further reveal that there were various litigations as regards the settlement in respect to the fishery in question. The said Notice Inviting Tender stipulated various terms and conditions including the necessity of Bakijai Clearance Certificate to be obtained from the concerned Office of the Deputy Commissioner distinctly in the name of the society or self-help group. 5. The records further reveal that there were various litigations as regards the settlement in respect to the fishery in question. Pursuant to the various orders passed by the learned Coordinate Benches as well as the learned Division Bench of this Court, an order was passed on 17.10.2022 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department whereby the Respondent No.8 society was offered the fishery in question for settlement at Rs.1,90,05,000/- for 7 (seven) years at Rs.27,15,000/- per annum. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6885/2012 challenging the settlement so made in favour of the Respondent No.8. 6. It is further relevant to take note of that another writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.8 before this Court wherein the Petitioner herein was the Respondent No.3 in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7056/2022. 7. The case of the Respondent No.8 in WP(C) No.7056/2022 appears to be on account of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner i.e. WP(C) No.6885/2022 challenging the order dated 17.10.2022. It was the case of the Respondent No.8 in WP(C) No.7056/2022 that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate which was issued dated 12.03.2020 ought to have been issued in the name of Respondent No.8 society but the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri had issued in favour of the Secretary of the Respondent No.8 society. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 04.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.7056/2022 disposed of the said writ petition thereby holding that the Certificate dated 12.03.2020 to be untenable in law and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri was directed to give due consideration to the application dated 02.03.2020 submitted by the Secretary of the Respondent No.8 society and pass a fresh order on the claim for the Bakijai Certificate in the name of the society. The Coordinate Bench further directed that the Certificate in the correct manner as per law, be issued within three days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 9 of the order dated 04.11.2022 in WP(C) No.7056/2022 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “5. But the settlement is assailed by the respondent No. 3 M/s Gauripur FCS Ltd. One of the grounds taken by the respondent No. 3 M/s Gauripur FCS Ltd is that the Bakijai certificate issued by the authorities is in the name of the Secretary of the society namely Anil Chandra Barman whereas as per the notification dated 18.01.2018 of the Fisheries Department of the Government of Assam, the Bakijai certificate invariably has to be in the name of the society and not its Secretary. 6. By referring to the provisions of the said notification, it is the contention of the respondent No. 3 in their writ petition that the Bakijai certificate issued to the Secretary of Geramari Gaon Panchayat Meen Samabay Samity Ltd is unacceptable in law. 7. We are not expressing any view on the said contention of the respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition as it is a subject matter of the other writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the Bakijai certificate dated 12.03.2020 issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri pursuant to the application of the Secretary of the petitioner society made on 02.03.2020. A reading of the certificate itself goes to show that the deceased father of the Secretary of the society late Mukunda Barman had been certified that there is no Bakijai proceeding pending against him, whereas the application made by the Secretary of the petitioner society was for a certificate in the name of the society. 8. The very reading of the certificate makes it a case of non application of mind. Firstly, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have taken note that this is an application made by the Secretary of a society for issuing a Bakijai certificate in the name of the society. So, therefore, the certificate ought to have been either in the name of the society or it ought to have been refused if the facts and circumstance so required. So, therefore, the certificate ought to have been either in the name of the society or it ought to have been refused if the facts and circumstance so required. Further, under no circumstance, a certificate can be issued in the name of the deceased father of the Secretary of the society as made in the instant case. 9. Accordingly, the certificate dated 12.03.2020 is declared to be untenable in law and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri is directed to give a due consideration to the application dated 02.03.2020 of the Secretary of the petitioner society and pass a fresh order on the claim of a Bakijai certificate in the name of the society. The certificate in the correct manner as per law be issued within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.” 8. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri passed an order on 09.11.2022 thereby directing the E-Governance Authority to issue the Bakijai Clearance Certificate afresh forthwith in the name of the Respondent No.8 represented by its Secretary in compliance to the order dated 04.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.7056/2022. Accordingly, on 10.11.2022, a Bakijai Clearance Certificate was issued. 9. The records further reveal that on 11.11.2022, the writ petition which was filed by the writ petitioner herein being WP(C) No.6885/2022, wherein the order dated 17.10.2022 was put to challenge, was taken up for hearing and the Respondent No.8 herein who was also a party in the said writ proceedings placed the fresh Bakijai Clearance Certificate dated 10.11.2022 before the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.11.2022 disposed of the said writ petition holding inter alia that the Certificate dated 10.11.2022 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of the tender process and further held that the earlier incorrect certificate would be in the nature of curable defect which is an acceptable proposition of law in a tender process. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court further observed that under such circumstances, there was a necessity on the part of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department to pass a fresh order on the acceptance of the corrected Bakijai Clearance Certificate. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court further observed that under such circumstances, there was a necessity on the part of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department to pass a fresh order on the acceptance of the corrected Bakijai Clearance Certificate. The learned Coordinate Bench directed that the said order be passed by the Fishery Department within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date a certified copy of the said order was served. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of the said order 11.11.2022 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “5. Considering the provisions of Clause 4 of the Notification dated 18.01.2018, we are in agreement with Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Joint Secretary would be contrary to the provisions of Clause 4 of the Notification dated 18.01.2018. 6. But, in the meantime, Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.8 has produced a fresh certificate issued by the appropriate authority in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri wherein a certificate had been issued in the name of the respondent No.8 Society. We also have to take note that the certificate dated 12.03.2020 which was earlier in the name of the Secretary of the respondent No.8 Society was assailed by the respondent No.8 in WP(C)No.7056/2022 wherein by the order dated 04.11.2022 it had been judicially accepted that the certificate was incorrectly issued in the name of the Secretary, although the original application remained an application for a certificate to be issued in the name of the Society concerned. Further no material is also made available to the Court that at the relevant point of time when the application was made by the respondent No.8 Society for issuing the Bakijai Clearance Certificate, there was any pending dues of the Society to the authorities. 7. Further no material is also made available to the Court that at the relevant point of time when the application was made by the respondent No.8 Society for issuing the Bakijai Clearance Certificate, there was any pending dues of the Society to the authorities. 7. In the circumstance, although the reasoning of the Joint Secretary in the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 is contrary to the provisions of Clause 4 of the Notification dated 18.01.2018, but in view of the fact that subsequently, a corrected certificate had been issued and also the earlier certificate which was incorrectly issued was not because of any fault on the part of the respondent No.8 Society and further that at the relevant point of time when the Bakijai Clearance Certificate was applied for there was no Bakijai proceeding pending against the respondent No.8 Society, we are of the view that the corrected certificate issued to the respondent No.8 Society may be taken as the appropriate material in the tender process by the Settling Authority. We observe as such in view of the fact that the circumstance in which the incorrect certificate dated 12.03.2020 was issued to the respondent No.8 Society and also the fact that at the relevant point of time when the application for obtaining the certificate was made there was no Bakijai proceeding pending against the respondent No.8 Society, it would be permissible under the law to take into consideration the corrected certificate for the purpose of the tender process, inasmuch as, the earlier incorrect certificate would be in the nature of a curable defect, which is an acceptable proposition of law in a tender process. 8. Accordingly, although we are not interfering with the settlement made with the respondent No.8 on the merit of the settlement, but a limited interference is made as regards the reasoning of the Joint Secretary that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate issued in the name of the Secretary of the Society concerned can be construed to be also a certificate issued in the name of the Society. But in view corrected certificate subsequently issued which also can be taken as a part of the material on record, we direct the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department to pass a fresh order on the issue of the acceptance of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate of the respondent No.8 Society. But in view corrected certificate subsequently issued which also can be taken as a part of the material on record, we direct the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department to pass a fresh order on the issue of the acceptance of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate of the respondent No.8 Society. The fresh order be passed within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 10. This Court before further proceeding with the narration of the facts, finds it pertinent to observe that vide the above quoted order, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had clearly observed that the certificate which was issued in the name of the Secretary of the Respondent No.8 dated 12.03.2020 was a mistake committed by the authorities concerned and therefore the corrected certificate dated 10.11.2022 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of the tender process. 11. The record further reveals that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 11.11.2022 in WP(C) No.6885/2022, the impugned order was issued on 15.11.2022 holding inter alia that the Petitioner herein was not qualified taking into account that the Petitioner would not fall within the neighbourhood and also the Distance Certificate could not be taken into consideration. The reason assigned therein is on account of a proceeding being pending before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies against an order of ARCS, Dhubri dated 07.07.2020 wherein it was held that the Petitioner society did not have any jurisdiction over the village Madaikhali which is included in the area of operation of Geramari GP MSS Ltd. under the local name Asharikandi (Bagurapara) and Asharikandi (Chikasipara) at the time of Registration in the year 1982. In addition to that, it was also a subject matter of challenge before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies that the list of members drawn from village Madaikhali in respect of the Petitioner Society out of the total 75 members is not valid which is now under the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.8 Society. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner’s bid was rejected. 12. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner’s bid was rejected. 12. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department further taking into account the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022 took into consideration the fresh Bakijai Certificate and thereby held that the Respondent No.8’s bid was a valid bid and awarded the settlement at Rs.1,90,05,000/- for 7 years. 13. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 15.11.2022 before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 14. Before adjudicating the dispute involved in respect to the order dated 15.11.2022, it is apposite herein to mention another subsequent event which took place pursuant to the filing of the present writ petition. The order dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022 was put to challenge before the learned Division Bench of this Court in WA No.361/2022. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed vide a judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 11.11.2022. Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WA No.361/2022 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “4. However, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent No.8 society filed a writ petition, being, WP(C) 7056/2022 alleging that though the Secretary of the respondent No.8 society applied for issuance of Bakijai Clearance Certificate in the name of the society but the authorities concerned erroneously issued the said certificate in the name of the Secretary of the respondent No.8 society, therefore, the authorities concerned be directed to issue correct Bakijai Clearance Certificate in the name of the Society. The learned Single Judge has further observed that WP(C) 7056/2022 came to be disposed by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to issue a Bakijai Clearance Certificate in the name of the respondent No.8 society. The learned Single Judge has further observed that WP(C) 7056/2022 came to be disposed by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to issue a Bakijai Clearance Certificate in the name of the respondent No.8 society. It is further observed that pursuant to the said order dated 04.11.2022 passed in WP(C) 7056/2022, a Bakijai Clearance Certificate was issued in the name of the respondent No.8 society and as such, although the reasoning of the Joint Secretary, whereby the fishery in question was settled in favour of the respondent No.8 society, is contrary to the provisions of clause 4 of the tender notification but, since subsequently a corrected certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No.8 society pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said decision of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department is not liable to be interfered with. The writ petition [WP(C) 6885/2022] was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a limited interference by directing the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department to pass a fresh order on the issue of acceptance of Bakijai Clearance Certificate of the respondent No.8 society. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the material available on record, particularly, taking into consideration the fact that a Bakijai Clearance Certificate was issued in the name of the respondent No.8 society pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 04.11.2022 in WP(C) 7056/2022, we do not find any illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. 6. It is also to be noted that the appellant was one of the respondents in WP(C) 7056/2022 but it did not challenge the order dated 04.11.2022 passed in the said writ petition and, on this ground also, we do not find any case for interference in this writ appeal. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.” 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 16. Mr. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.” 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 16. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Distance Certificate which was issued in favour of the Respondent No.8 was cancelled on 23.06.2020 and as such, on the basis of the said Certificate, the Respondent No.8 was not eligible to be granted the settlement. In addition to that, the learned Senior counsel had also submitted that the Bakijai Certificate with which the Respondent No.8 submitted the bid was an invalid Certificate and the fresh Bakijai Certificate dated 10.11.2022 could not have been taken into consideration for granting the settlement in favour of the Respondent No.8 inasmuch as the fresh Bakijai Certificate came into existence much later. 17. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8 on the other hand submitted that the issue as regards the Distance Certificate cannot be raised in the instant proceedings inasmuch as the principles of constructive res-judicata would bar the Petitioner from raising such disputes. The learned Senior counsel in that regard referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744 whereby the Supreme Court had categorically observed that the principles of constructive res-judicata are applicable in the writ proceedings. 18. In addition to that, the learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No.8 submitted that the issue as regards the Bakijai Certificate cannot also be raised by the Petitioner herein on the ground that in the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had categorically held that the said corrected Bakijai Certificate could be taken for the purpose of the tender process and this finding had attained finality by the learned Division Bench affirming the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022. 19. This Court had duly heard the learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.8 as well as the learned counsels for the State Respondents and perused the materials on record. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 20. 19. This Court had duly heard the learned Senior counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.8 as well as the learned counsels for the State Respondents and perused the materials on record. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 20. Let this Court first take up the issue as to whether the Petitioner can raise issue pertaining to the Distance Certificate of the Respondent No.8 being cancelled on 23.06.2020, in the present writ proceedings. It is relevant to take note of that in the earlier round of litigation, which the Petitioner filed being WP(C) No.6885/2022, the Petitioner did not raise the said issue as regards the cancellation of the Distance Certificate that too when the said writ petition was filed much after the alleged cancellation of the Distance Certificate which as per the Petitioner happened on 23.06.2020. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Explanation-IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is based upon the principles of constructive res- judicata. Explanation-IV stipulates that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. 21. It is the opinion of this Court that the issue of the cancellation of the Distance Certificate which ought to have been taken but not taken in WP(C) No.6885/2022, the said issue cannot be raised in the present proceedings inasmuch as the said aspect would be barred by principle of constructive res-judicata. The above opinion of this Court finds support in the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shiv Chander More (supra) . Paragraph Nos.21 to 24 of the said judgment being relevant are quoted herein under: “ 21. We may briefly refer to some of those decisions which elaborate the principle and extend their application to proceedings before a writ court. But before we do so, we need to say what is trite, namely, the doctrine of res judicata being one of the most fundamental and well-settled rules of jurisprudence. The doctrine is found in all legal systems of civilised society in the world. It is founded on a twofold logic, namely, (1) that there must be finality to adjudication by the competent court; and (2) no man should be vexed twice for the same cause. The doctrine is found in all legal systems of civilised society in the world. It is founded on a twofold logic, namely, (1) that there must be finality to adjudication by the competent court; and (2) no man should be vexed twice for the same cause. These two principles attract the doctrine of res judicata even to inter partes decisions that may be erroneous on a question of law. That the doctrine is applicable even to writ jurisdiction exercised by the superior courts in this country is settled by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 1018, para 17) “17. … Therefore, there can be no doubt that the general principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 or Article 226. It is necessary to emphasise that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the petitions filed under Article 32 does not in any way impair or affect the content of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. It only seeks to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in courts of law.” 22. The principles of constructive res judicata which are also a part of the very same doctrine have been held to be applicable to writ proceedings, by another Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Devilal Modi v. STO wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 1152, para 8) “8. It may be conceded in favour of Mr Trivedi that the rule of constructive res judicata which is pleaded against him in the present appeal is in a sense a somewhat technical or artificial rule prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It may be conceded in favour of Mr Trivedi that the rule of constructive res judicata which is pleaded against him in the present appeal is in a sense a somewhat technical or artificial rule prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule postulates that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he would not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is based on the same cause of action; but basically, even this view is founded on the same considerations of public policy, because if the doctrine of constructive res judicata is not applied to writ proceedings, it would be open to the party to take one proceeding after another and urge new grounds every time; and that plainly is inconsistent with considerations of public policy to which we have just referred.” 23. Reference may also be made to the Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra wherein this Court once again reiterated that the principles of constructive res judicata apply not only to what is actually adjudicated or determined in a case but every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated or which was incidental to or essentially connected with the subject-matter of the litigation. This Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 35) “35. … an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.” 24. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was applied to writ case. We, accordingly hold that the writ case is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata.” 24. It is in the light of the above authoritative decisions of this Court no longer open to the appellants to contend that the principles of constructive res judicata would not debar them from raising the question which, as observed earlier, could and indeed ought to have been raised by them in the previous round of litigation. The High Court was, in that view of the matter, perfectly justified in holding that the plea sought to be raised by the appellants in the purported exercise of liberty given to them by the orders of this Court dated 9- 4-2008 in Lt. Governor v. Shiv Chander More was not legally open and should not be allowed to be urged.” 22. Under such circumstances, the first contention so raised by the Petitioner stands rejected. 23. As regards the second contention, as to whether the fresh Bakijai Certificate dated 10.11.2022 could have been taken in the tender process pertaining to the settlement of the fishery in question. It is the opinion of this Court that the said aspect have already been dealt with and settled by the learned Coordinate Bench in the order dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench had categorically held that the fresh Bakijai Certificate dated 10.11.2022 could be taken for the purpose of tender process inasmuch as it was a curable defect. It is also pertinent to mention that though there was a challenge to the said judgment and order dated 11.11.2022 passed in WP(C) No.6885/2022 in WA No.361/2022, the learned Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 rejected the said Writ Appeal. 24. Consequently, it is the opinion of this Court that the second contention so raised is misconceived and accordingly stands rejected. CONCLUSION: 25. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 26. Before parting with the records, this Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission made by Mr. CONCLUSION: 25. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 26. Before parting with the records, this Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of the submission made by Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel pertaining to the observations made in respect to the Petitioner Society in the impugned order dated 15.11.2022. The learned Senior counsel submitted that though the Appeal was pending before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 15.11.2022, but the said Appeal was subsequently dismissed and a writ petition thereagainst had been filed which have been registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6505/2021. The said writ petition is presently pending. This Court observes that the observations so made in the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 as regards the neighbourhood distance as well as the members of the Petitioner society shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. However, for the sake of clarity, it is observed that any decision made in WP(C) No.6505/2021 would not affect the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 by which the Respondent No.8 was awarded the settlement.