CHANDI RAM KEOT Vs. AMAL PATAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner along with some others including the Opposite Party No. 1 submitted tenders for settlement of No. 110 Erakolong Fishery. The Petitioner offered Rs. 2001.25 per annum while the opposite party No. 1 offered Rs. 2000/ - per annum. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong on the advice of the Local Advisory Board settled the fishery in question with the Petitioner at his highest tender. The opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of settlement by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong and settled the fishery in question with the opposite party No. 1 for the remaining period of the term at the highest tender of Rs. 2001.25 per annum. Against the said order of the Board, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed.

(2.) Mr. B.K. Goswami the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned Board of Revenue gave wrong interpretation to Rule 46(b) of the Fishery Rules and arrived at an illegal conclusion and wrongly settled the fishery with the opposite party No. 1. The learned Board in its order observed that under Rule 46(b) of the Fishery Rules option might be given to persons in order of preference stated therein for taking the settlement of the fishery at the highest tender offered. The Board observed that under Rule 46(b) if a suitable tenderer belonging to the category entitled to preference was available the option should be given otherwise the very purpose of providing the necessary protection would be defeated. Mr. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner however submitted that on a correct interpretation of Rule 46(b) if there was no co -operative society offering tender whose tender was below 71/2% of the highest tender, the preference stated in the rule was not at all called for.

(3.) Rule 46 of the Fishery Rules may be quoted: