Manojit Bhuyan, J. (CAV) - The petitioner is a Co-operative Society comprising of 100% actual fishermen of Scheduled Caste community, duly registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 (as amended) and located in the neighbourhood of 1/77 Dighdhar Brahmaputra Fishery under Goalpara District. The said fishery is a 60% category fishery in terms of Explanation 2 to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. The respondent no.4, which the petitioner claims to be a defunct Cooperative Society, is impleaded as party respondent due to grievance raised in respect of granting extension of lease of the fishery to it by flouting Government norms and without due application of mind. In the present proceedings, the respondent no.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara as well as the private respondent no. 4 has responded to the writ petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The records in original have also been produced by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel.

2. A brief look at the events occurring prior to the cause of action necessitating institution of the present case would show that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P(C) 6392/2006 praying for consideration of its case in respect of settlement of the fishery in question. The said case was disposed of on 21.12.2006 with direction to the state respondents to look into the representation filed before it by the petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Subsequently, W.P(C) 1891/2007 came to be instituted by the petitioner challenging the order of settlement dated 7.4.2007 made in favour of the respondent no.4. The grounds urged in the said writ petition were that the respondent no.4 is a defunct Cooperative Society and not in operation since the year 2000. Also, the respondent no.4 is not located in Goalpara District and apparently not in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question. The said writ petition came up for final disposal on 7.8.2013 and in the order so passed this Court observed that the term of settlement made in favour of respondent no.4 would expire within a couple of months and that there was no formal settlement of the fishery with the respondent no.4, in that, the said respondent has been allowed to operate the fishery without any agreement etc. A direction was made to the respondents in the Fishery Department to make fresh settlement of 1/77 Digdhar Brahmaputra Fishery in accordance with the laid down procedure. It was also made clear that while making fresh settlement, the authority concerned will take into account the ground urged by the petitioner against the respondent no.4 in the said writ petition. Particular observation was made that in the absence of any formal settlement with the respondent no.4 by way of execution of agreement, there is no question of granting any extension of the existing lease period and the authority is to initiate fresh settlement process as per laid down procedure upon expiry of the term of the settlement. The said order of the Court dated 7.8.2013 was carried in appeal by the respondent no.4 in W.A. No.294/2013. The Writ Appellate Court having considered the provisions under Rule 8(b) of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 allowed the writ appeal holding that while the lessee (respondent no.4 herein) had a statutory right under Rule 8(b) to claim extension, the Government also has the corresponding legal obligation to consider such claim within the parameters prescribed by Rule 8(b) and that the discretion vested with the Government must be exercised in a reasonable manner and in accordance with law subject to fulfilment of the conditions. The Writ Appellate Court observed that it will be wholly inappropriate for the Court to prohibit or restrain a lessee from exercising its statutory right under Rule 8(b) as well as preventing the Government from exercising its discretionary power vested by law as to whether extension should be granted or not. The said Writ Appeal was accordingly allowed on 4.8.20