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 decision to ensure transparency, prevent arbitrariness, and satisfy the requirements of natural justice and administrative fairness.

ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited [AFDCL] for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. G. Bakalial, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the resonant nos. 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court for the second time with regard to the same grievance, after approaching the Court previously by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 869/2026, which was disposed of by an Order dated 18.02.2026 with certain directions.

3. Further, in view of the nature of grievance canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. For the purpose of consideration of the issues raised in the present writ petition, a brief narration of the facts appears necessary by way of a recapitulation from the Order dated 18.02.2026. The subject-matter is a fishery named ‘Doloni Fishery’ located in Bongaigaon District, Assam [‘the Fishery’, for short]. The Fishery is being settled from time to time by the respondent AFDCL by way of tender processes. Vide a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] no. 01/2018 dated 25.05.2018, tenders were invited from eligible bidders for settlement of the Fishery. The petitioner stated that as per the NIT, the Fishery was to be settled for a period of seven years. In the tender process, the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder. Contrary to the period of settlement mentioned in the NIT dated 25.05.2018, the Fishery was settled with the petitioner initially for a period of six years on the condition that the settlement of the seventh year would be considered at a later stage. In the year 2019, the possession of the Fishery was handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, the period of settlement of the Fishery was extended for the seventh year by an Order dated 26.06.2025 till 31.03.2026, after the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1728/2025 seeking a direction to the respondent AFDCL authorities to extend the period of settlement beyond six years.

5. It is found to be a consistent stand of the petitioner as against, the projections made by the respondent AFDCL authorities, that the Fishery comprises of an area of 867 Hectares [land] and 300 Hectares [water] and the petitioner was handed over a lesser area for fishing in 2019 as a huge portion of the Fishery covering about 25% was under encroachment. It was only in January, 2026, the said 25% area of the Fishery was made free from encroachment. Projecting that the petitioner has suffered huge loss in running the Fishery during the Covid-19 pandemic period and due to lesser area available for fishing, the petitioner submitted a Representation on 09.02.2026 before the respondent no. 2 seeking extension of the settlement beyond a period of seven years. At the time of filing of the Representation on 09.02.2026 seeking extension of the settlement period which was going to expire on 31.03.2026, a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] for settlement of the Fishery had already been published on 03.02.2026. The petitioner having an apprehension that his Representation for extension would not be given consideration in view of the publication of the NIT dated 03.02.2026, approached the Court by the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 869/2026.

6. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 869/2026 was taken up for consideration on 18.02.2026, this Court after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the facts projected, disposed of the writ petiti