DIPANKA HAZARIKA Vs. FISH FARM DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Fish Farm Development Association and the Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Development Association.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that there is a historical tank under the name and style of Purani Pukhuri (Athai Sagar) in the district of Sivasagar, Assam and that the said tank is used as Fishery Farm (Meen Mahal) for a long time by the Fish Farm Development Association represented by a Chairman who is the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. By an order dated 14.07.2009, the respondent No.2 allotted the said Purani Pukhari Meen Mahal in favour of the petitioner on annual fee of Rs.1,56,279/-. However, by subsequent letter dated 18.07.2009, the respondent No.2 had cancelled the permission given in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the said Purani Pukhuri tank is to be preserved as a historical monument.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the permission accorded to the petitioner to carry on fishery activities in the said Purani Pukhuri tank was cancelled by the impugned order dated 18.07.2009, but instead of taking any steps for preservation of the said Purani Pukhuri tank, the District Administration has allowed the ONGC Ltd. to use the said area for storage of their iron pipes, machineries etc. in a haphazard manner and in order to supplement his submission, the petitioner has relied on the various photographs annexed to this writ petition. It is further submitted that after cancelling the permission accorded to the petitioner to carry out his fishery, large number of persons are illegally carrying on fishing in the said tank and accordingly, the Government is loosing huge revenue which was being generated from the said tank upon lawfully allowing fishery thereon. Therefore, it is submitted that as the Purani Pukhuri tank is in a deplorable condition, the petitioner had filed a representation on 08.11.2011 before the respondents for permission to operate the said tank as fishery and similarly many local people of the said locality had also filed a separate representation before the authorities on 23.03.2012, seeking permission to operate a fishery from the said tank. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner as well as for a direction to settle the fishery in Purani Pukhuri Meen Mahal with the petitioner.