HARIDHAN DAS Vs. CHUNILAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Chapter X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking review of the order dated 18.6.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2848/2013. By the said order dated 18.6.2013, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent Fishery Corporation to settle the fishery as per the procedure established by law as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.M. Buzarbarua, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.R. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records produced by Mr. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC.

(3.) On being asked as to whether there is any proposal for extension of the lease period, Mr. Rajbonghsi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC submits that although the proposal was processed, but certain irregularities were noticed in respect of running of the fishery and also in respect of utilization of the loan amount that was sanctioned in favour of the review petitioner as per the aforesaid MOU. On perusal of the records produced by Mr. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC certain alleged irregularities, such as bringing fishermen from outside, delay in payment of installment, non-utilization of the loan amount in full towards development of the fishery etc. were noticed. However, no opinion is expressed in this regard. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the earlier lease period coupled with the extension having already expired in February, 2013, there was no question of grating further extension with retrospective effect. He submits that question of extension might come on the basis of something existing. When the lease period itself seized to exist, there was no question of granting any further extension. According to him, although the review petitioner had prayed for further extension, there being no extension after February, 2013 irrespective of any order passed by the respondent corporation, it should be deemed to have been rejected. He has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision (M/s. 129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. v. AFDC Ltd., 2001 1 GauLT 454, by which, it was held that irrespective of transfer of the management of the fisheries to the corporation, the statutory fishery rules will continue to be applicable in the settlement made by the corporation. It was further directed that the AFDC should frame its guideline. He has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court (Tanuram Tayeng v. State of Assam, 1992 2 GauLR 1, in which dealing with the question of grant of extension, it was held that there cannot be any grant of extension of settlement of a fishery after the period of settlement has expired. In another judgment (Shri Jagannath Urang v. State of Assam,1985 2 GauLR 38, in which also it was held that it is for the petitioner to prove "exceptional circumstances" entitling him to get the extension. While holding so, it was also held that after expiry of the lease period, the State Government is not empowered to grant further extension.