KOSHESWAR BHARALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for Mandamus on the respondents not to settle the Salmore-Nimatighat Parght through tender for the year 1999-2000 and for quashing the order of the Government communicated by WT Message dated 25-6-99 rejecting the application of the petitioner for extension of the settlement made in his favour in respect of the said Parghat.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner is the sitting lessee of Salmora-Nimatighat Parghat since 1995. For the year 1997-98, the said Salmore-Nimatighat Parghat was settled with the petitioner and the petitioner operated motorised passenger boat service as per the said settlement but suffered heavy losses. He, therefore, appealed to the State Government for settling the said Parghat in his favour for the year 1998-99 and the Government settled the said parghat with the petitioner at 10% enhanced rate upon the last years settled value. The said period of settlement ended on 30-6-99. The petitioner's case is that he also suffered loss on account of unprecedented flood in the year 1998 and, therefore, he filed an appeal dated 24-5-99 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Majuli, for granting extension of the settlement of Salmore-Nomatighat Parghat in favour of him for the period 1999-2000 and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Majuli, transmitted the appeal of the petitioner along with his comments to the State Governmentbut the State Government rejected the same. In the meanwhile, a notice dated 26-4-99 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Majuli, and the President, in-charge of Majuli Anchalik Panchayat, inviting tenders for settlement of the said Salmore-Nimatighat Parghat for the period 1999-2000 and pending such settlement temporarily appointed an agent to operate the said Parghat. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief as indicated above.

(3.) Mr. DCK Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the WT Message dated 25-6-99 only stated that the prayer of the petitioner for extension of settlement of Salmore-Nimatighat Parghat has been rejected by the Government, but the said WT Message did not indicate the reason for which the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the settlement was rejected. He further submitted that it would be clear from the letter of the sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Majuli, dated 25-5-99 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) that there was unprecedented flood during September, 1998 on account of which road communication linked to the parghat was badly damaged and the number of commuters crossing through the Parghat decreased, consequently, the petitioner suffered heavy losses in collection of revenue. According to Mr. Hazarika, this is a fit case in which the Government ought to have granted extension of the settlement of the Parghat in favour of the petitioner for the period 1999-2000 so that the petitioner can recoupe the losses that he had suffered during the year 1998-99.