The impugned order was set aside due to gross arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and abuse of power in exercising the authority to allocate the 2nd Class Fishery.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. I. Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Also heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 & 8.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi Districts who is the respondent No.4 in the instant proceedings whereby the 2nd Class Fishery Nos.8, 9 & 10 of Cachar District was allotted to the respondent Nos.7, 8 and the petitioner respectively.

3. The facts as could be discerned from the writ petition is that the respondent Nos.7 & 8 were permitted to catch fish from the 2nd Class Fishery vide an order dated 23.09.2002 passed by the respondent No.5. The permission so granted to the respondent Nos.7 & 8 was subject to certain conditions. The said conditions were incorporated in the order dated 23.09.2002 which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Taking into account its relevance, the said conditions are incorporated herein under:

“(a) The petitioner shall abide by the Rules and Regulation of 2nd class fishery and any violation of 2nd class fishery Rule the permission will be rejected at any time.

(b) The permission holder shall pay annual Revenue of Rs. 700/- to the Tahsil and produce challan to the Settlement Officer through Asstt. Settlement Officer, Katigorah.

(c) The permission is to be renewed in every year on the prayer petition along with Revenue deposit challan and fresh assessment report to be submitted by the ASO Katigorah.

(d) The permission holder shall not disturb any way the usual uses as has been in practice such as utilization for cattle, irrigation, drinking and other essential facilities required to be derived from by the locality.”

4. The petitioner herein who belongs to the fisherman community had submitted a prayer petition on 18.09.2018 before the respondent No.5 along with other eight persons as caretaker/representative of 2nd Class fishery Nos. 8, 9 and 10 covering Patta No.8, 9 and 10 in Dag No. 108 within the area Mohanpur Part I, Porgona Katigorah which is located within 1 KM from the residence of the petitioner and the others. Upon the said petition being filed necessary enquires were carried out and a report was submitted to the effect that the petitioner along with others were original inhabitants from the fisherman community and the annual income of the 2nd Class Fishery was Rs.50,000/- and as such the Government revenue would be 10% yearly and their residence was within 1 km of the respective Mahals. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.5, vide an order dated 21.06.2019 included the names of the petitioner along with others in the 2nd Class Fishery Mahal Nos.8, 9 & 10 of Mouza - Mohanpur Part I, Porgona Katigorah of Cachar District.

5. The respondent Nos.7 & 8 being aggrieved by the inclusion of the name of the petitioner and others submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 for cancellation of the names of the petitioner and the others. The said representation has been enclosed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said representation however reveals that the reason sought for cancelling the names of the petitioner and others was that the respondent Nos.7 & 8 were educated unemployed persons and they were settled on the recommendation made by the Minister of Fishery and they have been rendering business by paying Government revenue. It was also mentioned in the representation that the inclusion of the names of the petitioner along with others has resulted in creating great problem for them for rendering the fishery business and pay the Government revenue.

6. On the basis of the said representation, the respondent No.4 called for a report from the respondent No.5. On 04.12.2019, a report was submitted by the respondent No.5 stating inter-alia that the respo