Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Kulen Chandra Das (Keot) S/o Lt. Praneswar Das (Keot) – Appellant
Versus
Assam Fisheries Development Corporation – Respondent
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
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.
A procedure prescribed by law to do a certain thing in a certain manner must be followed strictly and there cannot be any deviation from such procedure.
The authority of the Managing Director of AFDC to make settlements without calling for a tender and the absence of a rehabilitation package for settlement of fisheries directly to lessees were the ce....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation has no power of direct settlement of fisheries and settlements made without calling for tenders ar....
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....
A party must participate in a tender process to maintain the right to challenge related settlements; acquiescence can bar claims where a party fails to act timely.
Administrative authorities are legally obligated to record specific reasons for their decisions when exercising discretionary power. A reasoned order must articulate the internal logic behind a decis....
Respondent authority has no power to make any direct settlement in terms of Rule 12 of Assam Fishery Rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
