Point of law: The review petitioner continued to catch the same amount of fish which was being done from the fishery on regular basis. At least nothing has been stated before this Court in any manner as to on this count whether there was any difference. Definitely it continued to pay the same amount of rent or fee to the Fishery Department and the review petitioner has not been able to show as to how it was prejudiced to run the fishery on a daily settlement basis, instead of regular basis.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner/writ appellant with a prayer that the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 142/2020 should be reviewed.

3. The grounds urged for review of the said order by Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner are precisely that the order dated 05.01.2021 clearly reflects that the order has been passed on the basis of an understanding/compromise between the parties and hence the said order was passed with certain directions, which read as under:

“Today, when the matter was heard, all parties are agreed that the writ appeal can be disposed of by issuing necessary directions which would be beneficial to all parties at large and would also sub-serve the principles governing settlement of State largesse.

On the above and without entering into the merits of the case in greater details, the writ appeal stands disposed of with the following directions:

(1) As the appellant/writ petitioner have shown that it has deposited kist money until 17.07.2021, which has also been duly accepted by the settlement authority, steps now be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to verify, calculate and refund such amount to the appellant proportionate to the period covering 18.08.2020 to 17.07.2021, within a period of 3(three) weeks from today.

(2) Steps be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for issuing tender for settlement of Dhipujijan/Garanga/Garchak, Malia Group Fishery in terms of the statutory provisions under the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order and conclude settlement of the fishery to the valid successful bidder within 15(fifteen) days next.

(3) The Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, to allow the respondent no. 4 to operate the fishery on daily basis until final settlement of the fishery in question is made through tender process, not exceeding the period indicated in (2) above.”

4. Now the grounds urged in the present review petition is that in the said order, the then learned counsel had consented to compromise without seeking instructions from the review petitioner and in fact the effective order which had been passed by the Division Bench goes against the review petitioner inasmuch as according to the review petitioner, since the seven years period of settlement did not operate smoothly and was interrupted by interim orders in the writ petition and when finally they had succeeded in the writ appeal, the concerned Deputy Commissioner had clarified that what would be counted for the seven years period of settlement will be the regular period of settlement and not the day-to-day arrangement. In other words, since the day-to-day arrangement itself was for three years, the review petitioner would liable to get a further period of three years from 2019 onwards and, therefore, it should have continued till December, 2022. Hence consent given by its counsel to an arrangement which effectively terminated the rights of the review petitioner in 2019 itself, was clearly prejudicial to the interest of the review petitioner and, therefore, it is liable to be heard again. In order to show their bona-fide, the review petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a complaint filed by them against their counsel before Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, which has been annexed along with the review petition.

5. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 has argued that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and under the limited