An Assistant Registrar’s certificate confirming 100% Scheduled Caste fishermen sufficiently complies with tender requirements.

The petitioner challenged the Settlement Order dated 16 December 2024 by which the No. 15/65 Gerua Kamarpota Fishery was settled in favour of Respondent No. 5, M/s Simlitola Toplakhowa Min Samabay Samittee Ltd.

The tender notice dated 17 August 2024 required cooperative societies, self-help groups and NGOs comprising fishermen to submit a certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies certifying that they consisted of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, together with the requisite Scheduled Caste/Maimal community documentation.

Five bidders participated. The petitioner quoted ₹58,00,000 for seven years and was the second-highest bidder, whereas Respondent No. 5 quoted ₹42,77,000 and was the fourth-highest bidder. The higher bids were rejected and the settlement was granted to Respondent No. 5.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5 had not submitted the required Scheduled Caste/Maimal community certificate and that the settlement was arbitrary. The State contended that the petitioner itself lacked the requisite experience and certificate issued by the District Fishery Development Officer, while Respondent No. 5 argued that its certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar was sufficient compliance.

Respondent No. 5 had submitted a certificate dated 6 September 2024 from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Goalpara, certifying that its members were 100% actual fishermen, that fishing was their livelihood, and that all members belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

Whether the settlement of the fishery in favour of Respondent No. 5 was arbitrary or unlawful because Respondent No. 5 allegedly failed to submit the Scheduled Caste/Maimal community certificate required by Clause 4(Ga) of the tender notice.

Whether the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, certifying that Respondent No. 5 consisted of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, constituted sufficient compliance with Clause 4(Ga) and Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the settlement notwithstanding its own alleged non-compliance with the tender requirements concerning fishermen status, experience and certification.

The Court applied Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, under which a 60% category fishery is to be settled through the tender system with a special category of cooperative societies, NGOs and self-help groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery.

Explanation 1 to Rule 12 includes societies and organisations comprising 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Maimal community of the erstwhile Cachar district.

The Court also applied Clause 4(Ga) of the tender notice dated 17 August 2024, which required a certificate from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies confirming the members’ status as 100% actual fishermen and their belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.

The Court interpreted Rule 12 and Clause 4(Ga) together and held that the essential requirement was certification by the Assistant Registrar that the society comprised 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.

The certificate dated 6 September 2024 submitted by Respondent No. 5 expressly certified both requirements.

The Court therefore held that Rule 12 did not require individual Scheduled Caste certificates from each member and that the Assistant Registrar’s collective certificate constituted sufficient compliance with the tender condition.

Since the petitioner had not submitted a similar certificate, and the settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5 was supported by the required certification, the Court found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision-making process.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.