RABIN DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and also Mr. K. C. Mahanta, learned Standing counsel, Government of Assam.

(2.) THE question of considering the prayer for quashing the order dated 16.8.2003 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition) whereby the settlement of fisheries -business for 5 years i.e. from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2008 was made in favour of respondents in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Assam Fisheries Rules, 1953 (in short called Rules hereinafter) in favour of an individual or in favour of 'Society' constituting members of 100% fisherman community of neighbouring area. It appears that the petitioner for his Society along with others came forward with their claims and the reports in respect of the antecedent's financial condition and their eligibility of participants were considered. The petitioner was initially indicated to be financially not sound, however, said remark was said to be inadvertently made as by subsequent letter dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) from the Deputy Commissioner, Marigaon, Department of Fisheries, Government of Assam, earlier remark was rectified with clear indication that the petitioner was having a sound financial back ground. According to the petitioner ignoring his claim the settlement of fisheries was made jointly in favour of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 overlooking to the fact that, members of the Respondent No. 6, i.e. M/s Kusumpur Pakaria Meen Samabai Samity were found to be defaulter as revaeled from report dated 3.7.2003 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) whereas, the petitioner's claim was rejected solely on the ground that the financial position of the petitioner society was not sound. According to the petitioner, at the time of making order dated 16.8.2003 the report about petitioner's good financial ground in view of the letter dated 17.5.2003 was not even considered for reasons best known to the authorities. According to the petitioner, settlement of fisheries other than tender system could be made in consonance to the provision of Rule 12 of 'Rules'.

(3.) ON the other hand according to the learned counsel for the respondents, members of the petitioner's society were neither from neighbouring area nor 100 per cent from fishermen community, therefore they are not entitled for settlement of fishery, however, these aspects were not the issue for adjudication in the order dated 16th August, 2003.