BHARAT DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was the lessee of Kumotia Group of Fisheries under the Assam Financial Development Corporation (in short 'the Corporation') for a period of 7(seven) years commencing from the financial years 2007-08 to 2013-14, by these petitions has challenged the orders dated 26.02.2010 and 28.04.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, whereby and whereunder the settlement made in his favour has been cancelled on the ground of subletting and refusing to accept the subsequent kist money, which is the subject matter in WP(C) No. 2658/2010 and consequent sale notice dated 07.05.2011 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation for settlement of the said fishery for a period of 7(seven) years commencing from the financial years 2011-12, which is the subject matter in WP(C) No. 2659/2011. Both the writ petitions are taken up together, as those relate to the cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and consequential sale notice issued by the respondent Corporation in respect of the same fishery and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the appearing parties.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of the present cases are that pursuant to the sale notice issued by the respondent Corporation for settlement of the aforesaid fishery, the petitioner along with others submitted their bids and accordingly the fishery was settled in favour of the petitioner for a period of 7(seven) years with effect from the financial years 2007-08 to 2013-

(3.) THE learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation supporting the order of cancellation of settlement as well as the subsequent order refusing to accept the kist money and the sale notice issued, has submitted that it is apparent from the evidences on record adduced during the enquiry conducted by the General Manager of the respondent Corporation on the allegation of subletting that the petitioner admitted such subletting at least to one person, namely, Shri Jogen Das, in his statement recorded on 10.11.2008 and signed by him. THE learned standing counsel, therefore, submits that the allegation of subletting having been admitted by the petitioner non-supply of the enquiry report before passing the impugned order did not cause any prejudice to him. THE learned standing counsel further submits that since one of the condition for settlement was not to allow any person to manage the fishery or not to sell the fishery or part therof to any other person, the settlement has rightly been cancelled by the Managing Director vide order dated 26.02.2010 for selling part of the fishery to another person, namely, Shri Jogen Das and consequently the authority has rightly refused to accept the kist money for the subsequent period and issued the fresh sale notice for settlement of the fishery in question.