The judgment establishes the principle that settlement of a fishery must follow the prescribed procedure, cannot be converted into a permanent arrangement, and should serve public interest.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri M Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri KK Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N Begum, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4. Shri P Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC is also heard.

2. The respondent no. 4 has also filed IA(C)/3136/2023 for vacation/modification of the interim order dated 08.09.2023. Both the writ petition and the interlocutory application have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts projected in the writ petition are that the petitioner was settled with a fishery, namely, No. 2 Sootea Brahmaputra Fishery (hereinafter the Fishery) vide an order dated 27.06.2016 for a period of 7 years. There has been history of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 and it is only after such litigation that the aforesaid order dated 27.06.2016 was passed. The lease period was to expire on 05.07.2023. However, due to certain change in circumstances, including the fact that part of the Fishery was included in the Orang National Park, the Fishery in question was not able to be given for fresh settlement. Accordingly, vide an order dated 22.06.2023, the petitioner was allowed to operate the Fishery on daily payment basis at the rate of Rs.2100/-. The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner was operating the Fishery without any blemish. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to an order dated 01.09.2023 whereby the respondent no. 4 has been allowed to operate the Fishery on daily basis at the rate of Rs. 3000/-. The said order supersedes the earlier order dated 22.06.2023. It is the validity and legality of the order dated 01.09.2023 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

4. Shri Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier order dated 22.06.2023 by which the petitioner was permitted to operate the Fishery on daily basis was cancelled without giving any opportunity and therefore, there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that a right had accrued upon the petitioner to operate the Fishery by virtue of the said order which has been superseded by the aforesaid impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is agreeable to offer a same rate and therefore, an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner.

5. With regard to the issue of the right of the petitioner Society to be granted the settlement of the Fishery in question vis-à-vis the statute holding the field, namely, Proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, he submits that the issue has been settled in the earlier round of litigation wherein a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.06.2016 passed in WA/347/2013 has held that the members can be belonging to those of the Maimal community of erstwhile Cachar district.

6. Percontra, Shri Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that the term of the earlier settlement with the petitioner having admittedly come to an end on 05.07.2023, the initial order dated 22.06.2023 by which extension was granted to the petitioner was itself illegal. It is submitted that though the aforesaid order was said to be a temporary arrangement on a daily basis, a reading of the same would reveal that the same is nothing but an extension as there is a contemplation of enhancement of the rate after a year. It is submitted that even if the process of demarcation and fixation of new boundaries would have taken time, the temporary arrangement also required to be done fairly. The issue of lack of jurisdiction and powers on the part of the Deputy Commissioner (presently District Commissioner) has also been raised by contending that under the Fishery Rules, power of settlement is vested only with the Government.

7. Justifying the order dated 01.09.2023, Shri Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel has su