Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010226112025 2026:GAU-AS:9961-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/359/2025 MS KALAIKHOWA PACHIM KHALAIBHANGA MATSYAJIBI SAMABAI SAMITY LTD A REGISTERED CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER THE ASSAM CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1949 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PRADIP BISWAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE SARADA BISWAS, VILL. KALAIKHOWA, P.O .TETELISARA, (PALASBARI), MAUZA KAMRUP, P.S. KAMRUP, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782426 VERSUS M/S 14/15 NISARI HARIA SAMABAI SAMITY LTD REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY NABA KUMAR BISWAS, R/O VILL. PALASHBARI, P.O. TETELISARA, DIST .NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782140 2:THE SATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM PIN 782001 4:DEPUTY SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 Page No.# 2/5 5:JOINT SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 6:THE ADDL. DIST. COMISSIONER NAGAON FISHERY DEPTT. DIST. NAGAON ASSAM, PIN 782001 For the petitioners : Mr. H. Ali, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sabrish Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. P. Sharmah, S.C., Fishery Deptt. For respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 Ms. U. Sharma, Govt. Advocate, Assam for Respondent Nos.3 & 6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 21-07-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. H. Ali, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sabrish Ahmed, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 96/2025. Page No.# 3/5 3. The Fishery Department, Assam had issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 20.12.2023 for settling the fishing rights in Meen Mahals (Fisheries) in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The present case relates to a fishery, namely, 14/15 Nishari Haria Fishery. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that despite he being the highest bidder in the fray, the afore-noted fishery was settled with the respondent No.1 whose offer was much less than that of the appellant. 5. The records reveal that there were five bidders, including the appellant, who had participated in the tender process. The appellant was ranked 2nd and the respondent No.1 was ranked 3rd in terms of the bid amount. But the bidder with the highest bid amount walked out of the fray. The fishing rights was ultimately granted to the respondent No.1, ostensibly on the ground that the appellant had not submitted the Bakijai Clearance Certificate and also for the reason that before the finalisation of the settlement, the appellant had withdrawn its offer, which withdrawal was sought to be revoked later. However, the records reveal that neither the withdrawal nor revocation of the withdrawal was ever taken into account by the authorities, meaning thereby that such letters of withdrawal and revocation were ignored by the Tender Finalising Authority for no apparent good reason. 6. This is the ground on which this appeal has been founded. 7. There is no dispute that both communications of withdrawal and revocation of withdrawal were not responded to by the Fishery Page No.# 4/5 Department. Would that then give a right to a bidder, which in this case is the appellant, to claim for settlement on account of respondent No.1 having been left as the highest bidder? 8. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned rejected the claim of the appellant holding that he had no conceivable right to claim the settlement of the fishery in question after having once voluntarily withdrawn from the tender process. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that a bidder who withdraws his bid, cannot revive his claim and even if he chooses to revoke his withdrawal, it would be open for the authorities to take a decision whether to accept such a bid or not. 9. The records further reveal that a conscious decision was taken by the appellant for withdrawing from the bid for the reason of the perception that the fishery had dried up and that it would not be viable to obtain settlement of such a fishery. 10. After having gone through the entire records, we do not consider the proposition laid by the learned Single Judge that the appellant having once withdrawn its offer, cannot revoke his withdrawal to be correct, but under the circumstances, we find that it was highly justifiable on the part of the authorities in ignoring the claim of the appellant. When a fishery is settled with a party, it is expected that all efforts shall be made to keep the fishery in proper shape and make it a revenue earning project. 11. The wavering approach of the appellant appears to have been a ground which weighed with the authorities to have not concluded the contract with the appellant. Page No.# 5/5 12. For this reason, we find that the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge ought not be interfered with. 13. We do not consider it necessary to take into account the flaw in the bid of the appellant regarding submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate as this is not, in our estimation, important in deciding the claim of the appellant. As such, this appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant