KACHUYA MATSYAJIBI SAMABAI SAMITY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(GAU)-1994-12-9
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 15,1994

KACHUYA MATSYAJIBI SAMABAI SAMITY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Civil Rule has been preferred against the show cause notice dated 18.08.94 issued to the writ petitioner by the Managing Director Assam Fishery Development Corporation for cancelling the settlement of petitioner's fishery, namely, Rata Beel Min Mahal offered to the petitioner.
(2.)The petitioner is (the Chairman of the M/s Kachuya Matsyajibi Samabai Samity which was registered in the year 1969 consisting 171 actual Maimal fishermen families. For settlement of the said fishery tender was called for from the intending tenderers by the respondent No.l Corporation and in pursuance to it the petitioner along with two other tenderers filed tenders. Petitioner was selected being found a Co-operative Society duly formed with 100% actual fishermen by profession. Comprising 171 families who belongs to Scheduled Caste Maima'l community, in compliance of policy of the Government and the Rules, for the period from 1994 to 1999 at the rate of 1,70,000/- and possession was given on 31.03.94.
(3.)The stand of the petitioner is that the fishery in question falls in the 60% fishery category (Annexure-F to the writ petition) for which Co- operative societies are entitled to be settled. Thereafter petitioner deposited first kisi/dues till March, 1995. Petitioner, as claimed, invested a huge amount of money amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the development of the fishery and incurred huge expenditures. But on 18.08.94 the impugned show cause notice was issued on the petitioner's Society by the respondent No.2 which the petitioner received on 06.09.94 directing the petitioner to reply the show cause notice within a period of seven days failing which settlement made in his favour shall be cancelled. On 06.09.94 written reply had been submitted and on enquiry the petitioner came to know that one Kalipada Das, respondent No.4 had filed complaint against the petitioner for settlement of the petitioner and that on the basis of the said complaint the impugned show cause notice had been issued, though there is no allegation that there is no such provision under the Fishery Rules, that the fishery in question belonged to 60% category which is at Sl No. 12 of the sale notice dated 29.04.83 (Annexure-F) and this position and status of 60% category of the fishery is still in continuation which means that such 60% category fishery required to be settled with Co-operative Societies constituted by 100% fishermen community only and same status regarding the fishery in question is still continuing. Admittedly both the parties were heard giving sufficient opportunity and the settlement was cancelled resettling it in favour of the respondent No.4


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.