BARPETA ROAD FISH MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND SHRI SUCHEN CHANDRA BARMAN Vs. THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Assam registered Fisheries are generally sold by calling "public tenders". "Public servants" have been empowered to settle the fisheries with the aid and assistance of experts or members of the Advisory Board. The fisheries are really public properties held by the State but the beneficiaries are the public. In the matter of settlements, co -operative societies and or the members of the listed classes have been granted preferential treatments under the mandates of Part IV of the Constitution.

(2.) A tiny fishery, the highest annual value offered standing at Rs. 27,705/ -, was put to sale for the period commencing from 26.9.80 to 31.3.83. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 filed tenders offering 27,505/ - and Rs. 27,005/ - respectively. The Sub -divisional officer, the Settling Authority, accepted the highest tender of the Petitioner whereupon he deposited Rs. 2,751/ - as security and continued to deposit the kists from time to time. the fishery lease was executed by the Sub -divisional officer in favour of the Petitioner and the possession was taken over by the later. In the meantime Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Board was unsure as to whether in fact 5 members constituted the Advisory Board or only 4. It concluded "that the settlement was violative of Rule 45 of "the Fishery Rules" which required "not less than 5 members and set aside the settlement and remitted the matter to "the primary authority''with the following directions:

(3.) IT is not contested by the learned Counsel for the parties that the appellate authority, namely, the learned Board of, Revenue has co -extensive power with that of the settling authority. The meaning of the expressions co -extensive power and/or plenary power in no longer a res Integra. What the primary authority can do is within the width, contour and scope of the appellate authority. The only difference is that while the primary authority is to consider the tenders with the aid and assistance of the members of the Advisory Board, the learned. Board of Revenue is free to decide the matter without any aid or assistance of any advisor. The crucial submission (SIC) before us is that the learned Board of Revenue, while exercising its appellate power must lock to the public internet as well as the interests of the tenderers while disposing of an appeal. In our opinion, in the absence of any prejudice to any of the parties, no proceeding should be elongated particularly the proceeding touching public need or public interest. The appellate authority has the undoubted power of remand. But when it should cry a halt and decide on merits instead of remanding the matter. We are of the opinion that it must balance the cause, the cases of the patties along with the vital question of public interest.