CHANDRAPUR ANCHALIK MEAN SAMABAI SAMITY LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHER DEPTT. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KSHIRODA KANTA BISHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the Annexure -II order dated 14th August 1989 issued by the 2nd Respondent extending the term of lease of No. 43 Khamrangajan and Khamranga Beel Fishery in favour of 4th Respondent for a period of three years with effect from 1.4.93 and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the said order.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner society is that 4th Respondent is a sitting lessee of the aforesaid fishery and has been enjoying the fishery for the last 18 years. The first settlement was made in 1974. According to the Petitioner the last extended term of lease was lo expire on 1.4.93 and on coming to know of this, Petitioner decided to bid for the fishery. However, later on the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent extended the lease for further term of three years w.e.f. 1.4.93 in favour of 4th Respondent. The extension order was passed before expiry of the term of previous extension in purported exercise of powers under proviso to Rule 8(b)(ii) of the Rules for settlement of Fisheries, According to the Petitioner, this Rule does not envisage any extension during the period of settlement, therefore, the order was passed arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of Rule and also contrary to the object and spirit of the Rules. Hence the present petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Lahiri the extension order was passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Rule 8(b)(ii) of the Rules of settlement for Fisheries without any valid reason. There was no reason why this order should have been passed. The impugned order Annexure -II does not show how this power under proviso to Rule 8(b)(ii) could be exercised during the period of settlement. According to him, the impugned order indicates that, state Government exercised the power under proviso to Rule 8(b)(ii) of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries, but in the facts and circumstances of the case the said Rule is not applicable, inasmuch as, the extension was not in respect of pisciculture. The order was thus? passed without application of mind. Therefore extension given by Annexure -II order cannot be sustained in law and liable to he set aside. Learned Counsel further submitted that extension of term of lease under proviso 10 Rule 8(b)(ii) can be made with a lessee who due to any natural cause or for any unavoidable reason beyond the control of the lessee suffers any loss, and the Government may extend the period to enable him to make good the loss. However, such extension can be granted on the basis of official report as to the nature of loss; that too only in exceptional cases for a reasonable period. The impugned order does not indicate anything.