UNEMPLOYED YOUTH FIRM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the settlement of Teliadonga Krishnasiga Kur Fishery, Sibsagar sought to be;made in favour of the respondent No.3, who is an individual.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that members of the petitioner-society are educated unemployed youths formed an Association in the nature of a cooperative Society under the name of "Unemployed Youth Firth". This firm is a registered firm being registered No. 2248 of 1989-90. In the year 1994 petitioner-firm applied far settlement of Teliadonga & Krishnasiga Kur Fishery and the said fishery was settled with the petitioner by order dated 8.10.94 for a period of three years from 1.10.94 to 30.9.97 at an annual revenue of Rs. 97,900/-. The admitted position is that the term of settlement was already expired, and thereafter, the petitioner applied for extension/ settlement of the said fishery with them. The first application for such settlement/extension was made on 8.9.97 before the respondent No.2 with a copy to the Minister of Fisheries, Assam routed through the Minister of Transport, Assam, who hails from the local I Constituency. This application was forwarded to the respondent No.2 by the Minister (Fisheries) vide note dated 9.9.97, however, the petitioner stated that the original application submitted before the authority has been misplaced and only the copy of the forwarding note has been annexed with the application as Annexure-C. Petitioner again submitted another application on 16.9.97 before the respondent No. 2 with a prayer for consideration of their case as the livelihood of its members are involved.

(3.) Respondent No.2 in a meeting held on 18.9.97 decided to settle the fishery in question with the respondent No. 3, for a period of five years. The allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner's application for settlement/ extension has not been considered by the respondent No. 2. Petitioner further alleged that while the fishery in question was settled with the respondent No. 3 no tender process for settlement was taken place, therefore, the respondent-Corporation violated the procedure for settlement of the fishery in question. Petitioner again made application before the respondent No. 2 on 4.10.97, however, nothing has been done to give settlement in favour of them. Hence this petition.