JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated December 19, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPA 3052 of 2020, this intra court appeal has been filed.

2. Mr. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate for the appellants has assailed the order on the following grounds:-

a) The learned judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the fact that the appellants had not violated the terms and conditions of the licence dated October 9, 2002.

b) The show cause notice issued to the appellants did not indicate that the same had been issued with a proposal either to cancel the licence or to resume the land in question. By the show cause notice the appellants were asked to answer few questions with regard to a report regarding non-utilization of the land for the purpose of pearl culture and related activity.

c) The learned Judge failed to appreciate that the licence of the land was granted for research and pearl culture and not for any commercial activity. The project involving research and cultivation of pearls could not be measured in terms of commercial production. The land was granted for the purpose of research and invention of a procedure for manufacture of pearls from the oysters available in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

d) Unless violation of the terms and conditions of the licence could be proved, the authorities could not resume the land by cancelling the licence.

e) Moreover, occupancy rights had been given to the appellant in respect of the said land and termination of such right could only be effected as per the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.

f) The finding of subletting of the land, by the team which visited the site in the absence of the director of the appellant No.1, was also incorrect and based on surmise and conjecture.

g) The learned Judge erred in taking into consideration the observations and findings of the authorities by disregarding the fact that the licence was not granted for commercial production. The reliance on the Income Tax Return and the information supplied to the Registrar of Companies, was erroneous.

h) Licence was granted upon appreciation of the contribution of the then director, Dr. Ajai Kumar Sonkar and his dedication and success in the field of research and pearl culture. The licence did not indicate that the said cultivation was for commercial purpose and that a minimum quantity of pearls were to be produced by the appellant no.1 during such cultivation process.

i) No profit making factor was incorporated in the licence. The expression “cultivation of pearl culture” should have been read in the context and the purpose for which the licence was granted. The purpose being development of pearl culture activity within the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, by the appellant No.1 company. Taking into account the contribution which the erstwhile director/intervener had made in the field of cultivation of pearl and being impressed with his innovations, the licence to occupy the agricultural land had been granted.

j) Various recommendations, paper publications, news reports, appreciation by the Lieutenant Governor, awards and accolades received by the erstwhile director were considered by the authorities. This prompted them to grant the licence to the company. The learned Judge had failed to take such factors into consideration.

k) The sole basis for cancellation of the licence was lack of commercial activity and inadequate production of pearls. No such condition had been attached to the licence.

3. Ms. Nag drew the attention of the Court to the ‘No Objection’ granted by the Assistant Commissioner (Settlement) which, inter alia, stated that the administration did not have any objection if a third party was allowed to carry on pearl cultivation and related activity. Thus, the finding of the authorities in the original order as also in the appeal that the land had been sublet and third p