M/S Marajan Meen Palan Atma ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1876 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010044262022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1599/2022

         M/S MARAJAN MEEN PALAN ATMA SAHAYAK GOT
         A SELF HELP GROUP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAMGAON, DHEMAJI,
         ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI PABITRA SAIKIA, AGED
         ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE MURULI SAIKIA, R/O BAMGAON, P.O.-
         GAOHAIGAON, P.S.-DHEMAJI, DIST-DHEMAJI, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
          FISHERY DEPARTMENT
          GUWHAATI-781006

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          DHAKUAKHANA
          LAKHIMPUR
         ASSAM

         5:KARHAPARIYA ANCHALIK KOIBARTA SURAKHYA SAMITY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          SHRI CHITRA DAS
          S/O CHANDA DAS
          BATAMARI
          GHILAMARA
          P.O. AND P.S.-GHILAMARA
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4

             SUB-DIVISION- DHAKUAWAKHANA
             DIST- LAKHIMPUR
             PIN-787053
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S BANIK

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 30.05.2022

Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate for the State.

None appears for the private respondent.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice

dated 20.11.2021 inviting tender for settlement of Korha 2 nd Part Meen Mahal under Mouza- Dhakuwakhana.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for settlement of this fishery was issued in flagrant violation of the mandate of Rule 43 of the Assam Fishery Rules. That apart, the notice issued does not confirm to the form specified under the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the last date a reference to a judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Bilasipara Mahkhuma Fishery Co- Operative Society Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors., was made by the learned counsel for the respondents who had submitted that the interpretation of Rule 43 of the Fishery Rules was answered by the Co-ordinate Page No.# 3/4

Bench vide the said judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interpretation rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the Bilasipara Mahkhuma Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited (supra) seeks to interpret Rule 43 in a manner which is against the mandate of Fishery Rules and Rule 43 itself.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the interpretation by the Co-ordinate Bench in Bilasipara Mahkhuma Fishery Co- Operative Society Limited is not correct and, therefore, it needs re- consideration.

Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate submits that he has no instructions and seeks time to file required affidavit.

During the course of hearing in the matter, it transpired that the fishery in question has in the meantime been settled with a society and the settlement holder is not before this Court in the present proceeding. The order granting settlement is also not assailed in the present proceedings.

Under the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to take necessary steps so as to array the settlement holder in the fishery as a party respondent and also assail the settlement order and/or take any appropriate steps in regard to this matter as per procedure.

Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking into account the fact that the fishery has in the meantime been settled with with the settlement holder, the matter is adjourned for 3(three) weeks enabling the learned parties to exchange the pleadings in the meantime and to array the settlement holder as prayed for.

The question of interpretation of Rule 43 read with the Judgment rendered in Bilasipara Mahkhuma Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited, is kept Page No.# 4/4

open to be taken up again on the next date fixed.

List this matter again on 24.06.2022.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant