AHRI ABDUL JALIL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Kangter village in the district of Karimganj, Assam and has challenged the order dated 24.12.99 of the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. Gauhati by which the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to operate the Kangter Fishery of Karimganj District on contract basis for a period of 5 years with effect from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 on payment of the annual revenue as follows:- From 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 =Rs. 10,474.00 From 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002 =Rs. 11,521.00 From 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003 = Rs. 12,673.00 From 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 =Rs. 13,940.00 From 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 =Rs. 15,334.00 Rs. 63,942.00

(2.) Mr. NC Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a recent judgment in M/s. 129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Limited -vs- Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and others (Writ Appeal No. 260/99) (1999) 2 GLT 620 a Full Bench of this court has held, inter alia, that the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. does not have the power to make direct settlement of Fisheries under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. According to Mr. Das, therefore, the corporation could have settled the fishery only by tenders or by holding a public auction. He cited the decision of this court in Ganesh Das -vs- State of Assam & Ors. 1998 (4) GLT49 wherein direction is given to settle the Fishery by following the tender system.

(3.) Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned counsel on behalf of the corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the records produced before this court would show that the impugned order dated 24.12.99 allowing the respondent No. 4 to operate the aforesaid fishery was not really a fresh settlement, but was an extension granted by the corporation. She submitted that in the aforesaid Full Bench judgment it has been held that the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. have not only powers to make settlement in respect of the fisheries vested with the corporation, but also have implied power to pass orders regarding extension of the settlement. She further referred to the records as well as the; affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to show that the settlement in respect of the aforesaid fishery was extended for a further period of 5 years with effect from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2003 at 10% extension fees in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the request made by the 47 villagers of Kangter village in Karimganj District. In this context, Mrs. Hazarika submitted that in an earlier writ petition C.R. No. 195/1992, a Division Bench of this court by judgment and order dated 11.2.92 had directed that the Kair.gter Beel Fishery will be settled only with one of the Kangter Beel villagers and it is in compliance with the said judgment of this court that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 4 who is a villager of Kangter Beel has been extended for a further period of 5 years by the impugned order. She also submitted that the writ petitioner was one of the signatories to the petition of the villagers requesting the Managing Director of the Corporation to resettle the Kangter Beel in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Uzir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, re-iterated the submissions of Mrs. Hazarika and relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. Mr. Uzir, learned counsel, further submitted that the corporation was an autonomous body with its own Memorandum & Articles of Association and under Article 115 of the Article of Association, the Directors of the corporation had the power to manage the business of the corporation. According to Mr. Uzir, in exercise of such power, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has laid down its own policy and makes settlement of fisheries or grants extension to the parties in accordance with such policies.