IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the term 'neighborhood' in fishery settlements should be interpreted flexibly, focusing on proximity and socio-economic context rather than strict distance.

JUDGMENT :

(Kaushik Goswami, J)

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R.R. Kakati, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 9; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department appearing for the respondent No.4; Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Co-Operation Department appearing for the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya and Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.10 & 11.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the judgment & order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.9225/2019, whereby fishery settlement made in favour of the appellant by an order dated 18.11.2019 pursuant to Tender Notice dated 10.06.2019 was set aside and the settlement was awarded to the writ petitioner/respondent No.10.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that an NIT was issued on 10.06.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) for settlement of Kamrup Pragjyotishpur Brahmaputra Meen Mahal of Kamrup (M) District (hereinafter to be referred as the “subject fishery”) for a period of 7(seven) years. Pursuant to the said NIT, the petitioner and the appellant (respondent No.10 before the learned Single Judge) along with other bidders participated in the aforesaid tender process. Thereafter, though the bid of the petitioner was highest, the subject fishery was settled with the appellant.

Accordingly, the said settlement was challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.9225/2019, wherein the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, held that the rejection of the writ petitioner’s bid and acceptance of the bid of the appellant for settlement of the subject fishery is unsustainable in law and by setting aside the impugned settlement, directed grant of the subject settlement with the petitioner No.1 at its offered price.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the interference of the learned Single Judge by the judgment & order under appeal against the impugned settlement of the subject fishery in favour of the appellant and consequent direction for grant of the settlement of the subject fishery to the petitioner is bad in law in as much as the petitioner does not fall within the neighbourhood of the subject fishery and as such, is not entitled for settlement in terms of Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, (hereinafter to be referred as “the Fishery Rules”).

5. He further submits that there is no averment in the writ petition that the writ petitioner resides within the neighbourhood of the subject fishery and in absence of such jurisdictional fact, the Court cannot assume the existence of such fact. In support of the aforesaid, Mr. Choudhury relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 732.

6. He further submits that it is evident from the certificate enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-6 that the petitioner’s society is located in the neighbourhood of fishery Mahals, i.e. No.25 Dhepujijan, and not in the neighbourhood of the subject fishery.

7. Mr. Choudhury further submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 19.07.2019 in WP(C) No.4774/2019 filed by appellant, the respondent authorities by speaking order dated 23.09.2019 has held that the neighbourhood certificate submitted by the writ petitioner is incorrect as none of the villages having operational area of the society is situated in the bank of the subject fishery jurisdiction. He accordingly submits that the writ petitioner does not fall under the neighbourh