Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Parghat Kaibarta Min Silpa Samabai Samiti Ltd., Represented By Its Secretary, Sri Harendra Hazarika – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Fishery Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.)
1. Heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3079/2022 and in WP(C) No. 6026/2022, and Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2744/2022. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned State counsel representing the State respondents and Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel for the private respondent in all the writ petitions, in whose favour, the settlement dated 07.04.2022 was made, pursuant to an NIT.
2. These three writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal, as agreed by the contesting parties, more particularly, for the reason that the subject matters of these three writ petitions relate to challenge to the order of settlement dated 07.04.2022,whereby, Karha Part-II Fishery in Dhakuakhana Sub-Division in the district of Lakhimpur was settled in favour of the private respondent i.e. M/s Karha Fishery Samabai Samity Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s Karha). Such settlement order was issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department.
3. The offer of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3079/2022, i.e. M/s Pargha
Tender bids can be lawfully rejected for not meeting specified conditions in the NIT, and 'neighbourhood' must be understood distinctly from 'area of operation' in the context of fishery settlements.
Under the powers which can be traced to Regulation 16 and Regulation 155 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 read with Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 that enables a Deputy Com....
Petitioner society is not a new society but a society registered in the year 1959 and there are materials on record to establish that not only the petitioner was considered for settlement of the Fish....
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.
The term 'neighborhood' in fishery settlements is to be interpreted pragmatically, emphasizing community proximity over mere distance, and administrative authority's decisions should not be disturbed....
Point of Law : A certificate issued by such an authority carries with it a presumption under Section 114 III.(e) – “That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
The court established that in matters of public revenue settlements, the highest financial bid must be prioritized unless there are valid and justifiable grounds for rejection that comply with the ap....
The paramount consideration for settlement of a fishery is public interest, and the court emphasized the importance of transparency, fair play, and compliance with previous court orders in such matte....
Rule 12 of Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 has prescribed that a 60% category fishery is to be settled with special category of Cooperative Societies, Non-Government Organisations and Self Help Groups cons....
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
