Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs N F Railway And 4 Ors. Represented By Its ... on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010214092025
2025:GAU-AS:13080-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/302/2025
WEAKERMEN'S FISHERY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY GOLAKGANJ ASSAM
REPRESENT BY ITS SECRETARY SRI SIBNARAYAN MAHATO, S/O- LATE
BUDHON MAHATO, AGED ABOUT . YEARS, VILL- SOUTH TOKRERCHARA,
PT-4, (WARD NO 5), P.S- GOLAKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM) PIN 783334.
VERSUS
1: N F RAILWAY AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 781011.
2:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER WORK
N.F RAILWAY ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION WEST BENGAL 736123.
3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION WEST BENGAL 736123.
4:THE ADDL DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
FAKIRGRAM JUNCTION NEW BONGAIGAON PIN- 783345.
5:ALOKESH ROY
S/O CHITTARANJAN PRADHAN R/O. VILL.- MORAKURA
P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
22.09.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.
K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Page No.# 2/3
The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.1868/2025,
whereby its claim for the lease of two ponds of the Railways has been rejected.
The records reveal that the appellant was the licensee of two Railway
ponds at Golakganj, which licence was given to it for 2(two) years. The licence
was never renewed and the appellant/Cooperative Society continued to be in
occupation of the two ponds for the last 23 years. It was only on 17.01.2025
that the two ponds in question were put to auction for settling it with the
highest bidder.
The appellant as also the respondent No.5 participated in the bid,
wherein the bid offer of respondent No.5 was approximately Rs.33,835/- more
than the appellant. The respondent No.5 thereafter was issued the licence for
the two ponds named above.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in accordance
with the Indian Railways Works Manual, 2000, in case of any public auction of
pond for lease of right of fishing, the first preference has to be given to a
Fishermen's Cooperative Society formed by the Railwaymen. If no such Society
exists, the second preference is to be given to other Fishermen's Cooperative
Societies. If no such Society exists, then it could be let out to others by open
public auction or open tender.
The appellant is not a Railway Cooperative Society but a Fisherman's
Cooperative Society. The auction notice was never objected to and the appellant
had participated in the same. Considering the higher bid price offered by the
respondent No.5, the licence was given to it.
The contention of the appellant that he had a first right of preference is
not justified as preference is in between the persons offering the same price in
Page No.# 3/3
the bid. Admittedly, the price offered by the respondent No.5 was more than
what was offered by the appellant.
Apart from this, the contention of the appellant that a licensee from
before has a first right of refusal is also of no help to the appellant as that
provision of the Works Manual also gets attracted only when the two offers
match so far as the price is concerned. Even otherwise, the appellant could not
have been said to be in possession of the pond as the licensee because the
original licence granted to it in the year 2002 was only for 2(two) years, which
was never extended.
On these grounds, the objection of the appellant before the learned
Single Judge, questioning the correctness of the decision of the
respondent/Railways in settling the two ponds in favour of the respondent No.5,
was rejected.
We also do not find any merit in the appeal and hence, the same is
dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
