IMPORTANT POINT
The settlement of fisheries under the PPP mode must adhere to the principles of fairness and transparency, and must be preceded by a tender process in accordance with the rules.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the AFDC.

2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 and the consequential order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC Ltd, who is the respondent No.3, by which the settlement of 44 fisheries, including the fishery run by the petitioners, have been cancelled.

3. The petitioners’ case in brief is that pursuant to an NIT for settlement of the Duramara-Batamara Mara Choulkhowa Fishery of Nalbari District for 7 years, a settlement order dated 28.10.2016 was issued by the respondent No.3, settling the Fishery with the petitioners upto till 31.03.2023, for a total consideration amount of Rs.29,42,100/-.

4. During the settlement period, the petitioner No.1 made an application for inclusion of the fishery in the PPP mode. An order was issued on 25.02.2021 by the respondent No.3 with the approval of the Chairman of the AFDC, i.e., the respondent No.2, directing the management of the beel/fishery for 4 years, by way of Direct Management System, by engaging the petitioner No.1, and the petitioner No.2. The order dated 25.02.2021 also stated that the management of the fishery/beel may be extended for another 7 years, subject to satisfactory management of 4 years against the target value of Rs.4,62,330/-per year. It was also stated that the arrangement made in the order dated 25.02.2021 was due to the norms and status of Covid-19 pandemic and financial crisis of the AFDC Ltd.

5. A Deed of Agreement for management of the Borkona Fishery in Public Private Partnership mode (in short ‘PPP mode’) was executed on 01.07.2021, between the petitioners and the AFDC Ltd.

6. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.3, 44 fisheries which had been settled under the PPP mode without inviting tender, were cancelled, as it was in violation of Section 254 of the Assam Financial Rules, which mandates settlement of a contract only through a tender process and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s 129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2001) 2 GLR 333.

7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 put the same under challenge in WP(C) 2684/2022. This Court stayed the impugned order dated 08.04.2022, in so far the petitioners’ fishery was concerned and as such, the petitioners are still operating their fishery.

8. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners challenge to the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 had been tagged along with a number of other cases, wherein the same impugned order had been challenged. However, the present case was segregated from the other writ petitions, on the ground that the petitioners’ case was slightly different from the other cases. Thus, though the Coordinate Bench had dismissed the bunch of writ petitions which had put to challenge the impugned order dated 08.04.2022, the same could not be made applicable to the petitioner’s case, as the petitioners’ case had been segregated from the bunch of cases that had been dismissed, the leading case being WP(C) 2192/2022.

9. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners’ fishery settlement period of 7 years was due to end on 31.03.2023. However, a decision was taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, for extension to the settlement of the fishery with the petitioners for a further period of 4 years under the PPP mode, on the basis of the order dated 25.02.2021 and the Agreement dated 01.07.2021. He submits that the petitioner had been settled with the fishery under the PPP mode without call of tender, by way of an extension of the earlier settlement order dated 28.10.2016. He submits that on the petitioners requests, permission was given by the respondents to construct embankments a