IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent processes in fishery settlement and upheld the decision in the interest of the public exchequer.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This intra-Court appeal is preferred by the appellant Society being aggrieved with the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.8281/2022 and WP(C) No.8310/2019.

2. WP(C) No.8281/2022 was filed by the respondent No.7 herein whereas WP(C) No.8310/2019 was filed on behalf of the appellant Society. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.02.2024 has dismissed WP(C) No.8310/2019 as withdrawn whereas has allowed WP(C) No.8281/2022.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Gr.2/88 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-II and III Fishery of Dhubri District was settled in favour of the appellant Society vide settlement order dated 15.12.2012 for a period of 7(seven) years. Before expiry of the said settlement, the appellant Society had moved an application for extension of settlement of the Fishery for 2(two) years. However, when no decision was taken on the said representation filed by the appellant Society, it had filed WP(C) No.8310/2019 before this Court seeking a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent Government authorities to grant extension of the lease period of the Fishery for a period of 2(two) years and not to initiate a fresh process of settlement.

4. The said writ petition, WP(C) No.8310/2019 was pending. However, in the meantime, the respondent Government authorities had issued a fresh NIT dated 15.11.2019 with regard to settlement of the Gr.2/88 Dharnad Brahmaputra Part-II and III Fishery.

Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant Society had preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No.8736/2019 before this Court seeking a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent Government authorities to grant extension of the Fishery in question to it for a period of 2(two) years with the further direction not to give effect to the NIT dated 15.11.2019 for settlement of the Fishery in question till its application for extension is decided.

5. WP(C) No.8736/2019 and WP(C) No.8310/2019 came up before the learned Single Judge on 16.12.2019 and the learned Single Judge had passed an order to the effect that till the next date, i.e. 20.12.2019, though the respondent Government authorities may go ahead with the NIT dated 15.11.2019, but no final order(s) of settlement be passed without the leave of the Court. Further, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Society in WP(C) No.8736/2019 and WP(C) No.8310/2019 that the appellant Society had already filed an application for allowing it to run the Fishery in question on day-to-day basis, a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge that the authorities are directed to consider the aforesaid application and pass appropriate order(s) on the same expeditiously. The aforesaid writ petitions were again ordered to be listed on 20.12.2019.

6. Pursuant to the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.12.2019 passed in WP(C) No.8736/2019 and WP(C) No.8310/2019, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, vide order dated 23.12.2019 had allowed the appellant Society to run the Fishery in question on daily basis for 7(seven) years as a stop-gap arrangement till disposal of WP(C) No.8310/2019 at the rate of Rs.3080/-per day. Later on, WP(C) No.8736/2019 was disposed of as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.01.2021.

7. Being aggrieved with the extension of the Fishery in question in favour of the appellant Society by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, vide order dated 23.12.2019, the respondent No.7 herein, had preferred writ petition, being WP(C) No.8281/2022, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.02.2024 and challenging the same, the present intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant Society.

8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Society has submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in taking into consideration WP(C) No.8736/2