KALPANA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Mahanta appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDCL, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Islam, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 on the strength of a caveat. The respondent No.4 is the Project Manager working under the AFDCL authorities. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed today, service of notice upon the respondent No.6 is not deemed necessary.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner, viz., Late Ratan Kumar Sarkar, was awarded with the settlement of the 35 No. Pakaria Group Fishery in the district of Morigaon, for a period of seven years, by the order of settlement dated 17.04.2017 on condition of paying revenue of Rs.22,31,601/- per year for the years 2017-18 to 2019-20 and for the remaining years, the revenue was to be fixed as per the existing norms of the AFDC Limited. Accordingly, Ratan Kumar Sarkar took over possession of the fishery but on 22.06.2019 he expired before completion of the term of settlement. On the death of the sitting lessee i.e. Ratan Kumar Sarkar, the respondent No.3 had issued the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 addressed to the respondent No.4 accepting his proposal for incorporating the respondent No.5 as a stakeholder in the management of the said fishery for a period of four years, which can be extended for another seven years, against a target value of Rs.14,00,000/- per year for the years 2019-20 to 2020-21. It is the order dated 01.07.2019 which has been assailed by the writ petitioner, who is the wife of deceased Ratan Kumar Sarkar, inter-alia on the ground that the impugned order of settlement has been issued by the respondent No.3 in a pick and choose manner, without floating any tender.

(3.) By placing reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. 129 Haria Baglong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. Assam Fisheries Devp. Corporation Ltd. and others, 2001 1 GauLT 454 Mr. Choudhury has argued that the AFDC does not have any power to issue an order of settlement of fishery without floating a tender. The learned senior counsel has also argued that the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court would cover cases where even the management of the fishery is sought to be shared with any private individual. Contending that even his client has requisite means to function as a partner/stakeholder for the management of the fishery, Mr. Choudhury submits that if a tender was floated then it would have been open for all the interested parties including the petitioner to submit their offers.