IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF WP 866 (W) 2019 with IA No.:CAN/1/2019 (OldNo.:CAN/11351/2019)

with CAN/2/2025 Amal Kumar Jana.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya,Adv., Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal, Adv.

Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan De, AGP., Ms. Srilekha Bhattacharya, Adv., Reserved on : 19.06.2025 Judgment on : 12.09.2025 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Petitioner is group leader of Pindrui Fisheries Production Group. The said group was granted lease of Government Fisheries of Mouza- Gobardhanpur plot No. 2139 area 1.23 acres. The lease was for 07 years with effect from 01.01.2011 to 31st December, 2017.

2. Petitioner in terms of office Memo dated 20th July, 2010 of Assistant Director of fisheries given possession of above mentioned fisheries on lease basis. It is the contention of the petitioner that during pendency of the said lease period, vide a communication dated 05th September, 2014, Assistant Director Fisheries, Paschim Medinipur, and extended lease period of the said tank in favour of the petitioners group for further 05 years with effect from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2022 with fixed yearly rent. Subsequently, through an order dated 09th March 2015, Assistant Director, Fisheries Paschim Medinipur, has communicated the petitioner that by virtue of change of law, sealed tender shall be invited by the committee consisting of the authorised officers as per Rule 272(III) for settlement of fisheries; due to the change of policy, the lease period in favour of the petitioner groups will valid only up- to 31.12.2017. Again, the said Assistant Director, Fisharies, Paschim Medinipur vide impugned memo dated 27th June, 2018 has cancelled the said lease right of the petitioner.

3. Hence this writ.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has extended the lease period till 2022, but by subsequent memo, it has been cancelled the lease period and allowed the petitioner group to perform the lease right till the year 2017. Again by a subsequent impugned memo, the concerned authority has cancelled the earlier order. He submits that the act and action of the respondent authority is itself arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel further submits that presently the Govt. Fisheries is unattended and some outsiders are in possession of the said Govt. Fisheries without any proper authorisation of the concerned Department. He further submits that the matter was properly disclosed by the petitioner by a separate application. He submits that the respondent authorities are well aware about the fact but they have not taken any steps. It is the positive contention of the petitioner that the petition may be allowed to continue the lease up the year 2022.

5. Respondent authority used affidavit in opposition.

It is the sole contention of the respondent authority that according to the provision of 372 of West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual 1991, along with its amendment, neither the Assistant Director of the Fisheries nor the Director of Fisheries of the concerned District have any right to lease out and/ or settle the Govt. Fisheries. There is a specific procedure to lease and settled the Fisheries but in the present case that was not adopted, that is why, the said lease was cancelled. Learned Counsel for the respondent authority further argued that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as it is become infructuas by efflux of time.

6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner seeks mandamus upon respondent authority so that memo dated June, 2018, be quashed. Petitioner intends to continue the lease in terms of memo dated

05.09.2014 wherein the lease was granted from 01.01.2018 to 30.12.2022. It appears that today we are running in the year 2025. Thus the lease period as pleaded by the petitioner to enforce has