DHANI RAM GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subansiri Reserve Fishery Mahal was settled with the petitioner for the period from 199 5 to 1997 and the petitioner took possession of the fishery. On 31.3.97 the petitioner submitted an application before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department for extension of the period of settlement but no orders were passed on the application of the petitioner for extension. Instead, by an order dated 30th April 1998, the Government of Assam in the Forest Department settled the Subansiri Reserved Fishery Mahal in favour of the respondent No. 5 for a period of 2 years with effect from the date of actual possession of the Mahal subject to payment of 30% above the last settled value of the Mahal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the said order dated 30th April, 1998 of the Government of Assam, Forest Department, settling the fishery mahal in favour of the respondent No. 5.

(2.) At the hearing, the only contention raised by Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of settlement dated 30th April, 1998 has been made with the respondent No. 5 without inviting tenders or without holding any public auction. He submitted that although under Rule 3 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes & Mahals Rules, 1977, the Government can settle a Forest Mahal directly by negotiation, this Court has held in the case of Jenghanser-Vs- Karbi Anglong Autonomous Dist. Council & Ors. (1997(2) GLT 552) : (1997) 3 GLR 436 that the sale of forest produce by inviting tenders or public auction should be the normal rule. He argued that in the present case no compelling reasons have been disclosed by the State Government for settling the fishery mahal in favour of the respondent No. 5 directly by negotiation without inviting any tender or without holding a public auction and therefore the impugned order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 5 is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that, had tenders been invited or public auction held, the petitioner would have had the opportunity to participate in the tender or the public auction. But as no tender was invited nor any public auction held, the petitioner has been discriminated against and his right under Article 14 of the Constitution had been affected.

(3.) Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, referred to the various averments made in the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 and contended] that the fishery mahal has been settled in favour of the respondent No. 5 as he belonged to scheduled caste community and about 500 local fishermen in the area had held a public meeting and adopted a resolution that the fishery should be settled in favour of the respondent No. 5 so that local fishermen can earn their livelihood out of the fishery. He argued that the settlement had been made in favour of the respondent No. 5 in the public interest and that the decision of this Court in the case of Jenghanser-Vs- Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council & Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. B.D. Das, ilearned counsel for the petitioner, was not applicable in the facts of the present case.