GANESH DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been the sitting lessee of Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8-Mandakuri/Kurijan/Sessania/Hajosuti group Fishery of Kamrup District for the period 1994-97 and he submitted an application before the Minister, Department of Fisheries to give settlement of the said group of fisheries for the period of 7 more years on the ground that he suffered loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Though a report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, on the said application of the petitioner, no order was passed by the Government setting the said group of fisheries in favour of the petitioner and instead by order dated 17-7-97 of the Government, the said group of fisherie's were settled with Sri Basanta Kumar Das, respondent No. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order of settlement and for directing the State-respondents to settle the said group of fisheries in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) At the hearing, Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that by the impugned order dated 17-7-97, the Government has found the petitioner equally eligible for settlement of the said group of fisheries and yet settled the said group of fisheries in favour of the respondent No. 4. He stated that no good reason has been recorded in the impugned order as to why the respondent No. 4 was settled with the aforesaid group of fisheries and not with the petitioner and therefore the impugned order of settlement was violative of his right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Choudhury further contended referring to paragraph-7 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 was a worker of a political party, namely, Asom Gana Parishad and his case was recommended by the local MLA of the Asom Gana Parishad and this averment in paragraph-7 of the writ petition has not been denied in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4.

(3.) Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, similarly contended that the petitioner himself submitted his application for extension through the very same local MLA of Asom Gana Parishad. He further argued that the petitioner had been the sitting lessee of the said group of fisheries for last 12 years and equity demanded that the respondent No. 4 should be settled with the group of fisheries in question for some period. According to Mr. Chaliha, out of all eligible applicants, the Government had to choose one eligible applicant for settlement and there was nothing wrong in the order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4 who was one of the eligible applicants. Mr. H. N. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the petitioner had been enjoying the group of fisheries in question for about 12 years, settlement in favour of respondent No. 4 was fair and equitable and cannot be quashed on the ground that it violates the right of the petitioner to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Sharma produced the records of the case.