SUDHANGSHU KUMAR SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.9.96 passed by the Government of Assam, in the Fishery Department under the proviso to rule 12 of the Rules for the Settlement of Fisheries. 1953, settling the 157/158 Nangalkuri/Chakchaki Fishery of Morigaon District with M/s Boramari Min Samabai Samity Ltd of which the respondent No. 5 is the Secretary.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the aforesaid fishery was initially settled with the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 1.10.92 to 30.9.93. The petitioner, however filed an application for extension and by order dated 29.8.95, the Government in the Fishery Department settled the fishery in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 5 years with effect from 1.10.95 to 3CI.9.2000 to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Government, the respondent No.5 filed a writ petition before this Court numbered as Civil Rule No. 3811/95. On 8.8.96, me learned Single Judge of this Court delivered the judgment in the said Civil Rule holding that the extension in favour of the petitioner had not been granted in accordance with rule 8(b) of the Rules for the Settlement of Fisheries and directed the State respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and in the meanwhile allow the petitioner to continue to operate the fishery. Aggrieved, by the said judgment dated 8.8.96 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3 811 /95, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 541/96 before the Division Bench of this Court. But during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Government passed a fresh Order on 26.9.96 settling the aforesaid fishery in favour of M/s Boramari Min Samabai Samity Limited for a period of 5 years with effect from 26.9.96 to 25.9.2001 for an amount of Rs 18,975/- aggrieved by the said order dated 26.9.96, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for appropriate relief.

(3.) The first contention raised by Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the State Govt. should not have hastened to pass fresh order pursuant to the judgment dated 8.8.96 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 3811/95 when the petitioner had preferred Writ Appeal being No. 541/96 before the Division Bench of this Court. According to Mr. Saikia, the State Government should have in all fairness waited for the disposal of the said Writ Appeal and should not have rushed to pass fresh orders on 26.9.96 settling the fishery in favour of M/ s Buramari Min Samabai Samity Ltd. Mr. S.N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, contended that a clear direction was given by the judgment dated 8.8.96 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3811/95 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said judgment of the Court and when no interim orders had been passed by this Court in Writ Apeal No. 541/96, the State Government had no option but to pass fresh orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court. He pointed out that by the said judgment the learned single Judge directed the parties to appear before the authority on 30.8.96 so that fresh orders could be passed in accordance with law within a period of one month as directed by the Court. It is for this reason that the State Government had to pass fresh orders within a period of one month and could not possibly take risk of initiation of contempt proceeding for non- compliance of the orders passed by this Court. I find a lot offorce in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhuyan. In fact, in the impugned order dated 26.9.96 it has been noted that the petitioner prayed before the Government not to take any action before disposal of the Writ Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CRNo. 3811/95 but since no interim order was received either from the Court or from the petitioner it was necessary for the Government to pass fresh orders on the settlement in accordance with the directions contained in the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the first contention of Mr. Saikia fails.