JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. T. K. Bhuyan learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.

Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent No. 6., though Service of notice upon respondent No. 6 was treated to be complete by this court under order dated 26.11.2021.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary Chengajan Krimijan Fishery Samabai Ltd., has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.1.2021, whereby the settlement of the fishery in question was extended in favour of the respondent No. 6 and remission was granted in its favour pursuant to order of this court in WP(C) No. 2501/2018. The said writ petition was preferred by the private respondent No. 6.

3. In the said writ petition, this court without expressing any opinion on merit of claim of remission of the respondent No. 6, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the prayer for remission of revenue.

4. The fishery in question namely, Chengajan Group Fishery, Dhemaji was settled with the private respondent No. 6 by a settlement order dated 26.4.2013 for a period of seven years. The said settlement period expired on 26.4.2020.

5. The respondent No. 6, who was a settlement holder of five fisheries, approached this court alleging non consideration of its claim for remission. This court, as stated hereinabove, without expressing any merit on the claim of the petitioner, directed the respondent authorities to consider the prayer of remission of revenue with regard to three fisheries including the fishery in question. Pursuant to such order, the respondent authorities by impugned order dated 22.1.2021 granted remission to the respondent No. 6 and also granted extension of the lease for a another period of three years.

6. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fishery could not have been extended after expiry of the lease period. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order extending the period of lease in favour of the petitioner is without any sanction and authority under the law.

7. Mr. T. K. Bhuyan learned counsel further submits that the condition precedent for extension of lease as mandated under Rule 8(b) of Assam Fisheries Rule, 1953 was not available. He further contends that the lease was extended only to favour the respondent No. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that being 100% fisherman society, the petitioner is having a right to participate in the settlement process as per mandate of Assam Fisheries Rules 1953, through open competition amongst 100% fisherman society. However, such right has been denied by issuing the impugned order of extension in favour of respondent No. 6, submits Mr Bhuyan. Therefore he prays that impugned order of extension be set aside and the respondent be directed to initiate to process of settlement as per Rule 1953.

8. Per contra Mr. N. Goswami learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 5 submits that the authorities after enquiry and after having a subjective satisfaction on the claim of the petitioner has issued order of extension. According to Mr. Goswami, the respondent No. 6 suffered loss and due to some natural calamities he could not fish the settled fishery. He further submits that such subjective satisfaction of the authorities may not be interfered in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as such power is not appellate power. Mr. Goswami also submits that due process of law has been followed while issuing the order extension of the lease and therefore this is a fit case where this writ petition should be dismissed.

9. The Rule 8(b) of the Assam Fisheries Rules 1953 empowers the Government to extend period of lease, when such period of lease is not less than 3 years and such lease is interfered with due to natural cause or any unavoidable reason beyond control of the lessee. Such determination of reason should be arrived on the basis of official reports disclosing