ADARSHA FISHERY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Adarsha Fishery Co -Operative Society
STATE OF ASSAM
Click here to view full judgement.
C. Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. -
(1.) THE simple point that calls for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Petitioner Adarsha Fishery Co -operative Society, who claims to have obtained a settlement of Dhulidowar Mahara Fishery, Regd. No. 16 in the Sub -division of North Lakhimpur for 3 years from 1 -4 -67 to 31 -3 -70 at an annual revenue of Rs. 18,125/ on tender system on 28 -2 -67 from the Sub -Divisional Officer North Lakhimpur could question the right of the State Government to settle the fishery in question much earlier, namely on 12 -1 -67, with the opposite party No. 4 Dibakar Morang for the same period at an annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 in exercise of their powers under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules.
(2.) RULE 12 runs as follows:
12. No fishery shall be settled otherwise than by sale except by the State Government. The order of settlement passed by the State Government shall be final:
Provided that the State Government may introduce the tender system of settlement of fisheries in place of sale by auction system whenever it is considered necessary.
It may be seen from the above rule that if the State Government desires lo settle the fishery direct, they have got full and absolute power to do so without resort to following the normal system of sale by auction or adopting the tender system. In the instant case the Petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 4 had applied for direct settlement to the State Government. The State Government on a consideration of these applications and after calling for a report from the Sub -Divisional Officer, decided to settle the fishery with the opposite party No. 4. In our opinion, as the State Government has the full power to effect a settlement under Rule 12 directly with the party, it is not open to any one to question the validity of the action taken in exercise of that power.
(3.) SEVERAL arguments were advanced by Dr. Medhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his petition, one of which is that the Annexure 'III' to the petition, the order of the State Government issued on 25 -1 -67 referred to above, settling the fishery with the opposite party No. 4, which appears at p. 35 of the Paper Book, is not a valid order at all, that it is not properly authenticated and in any case it has not been duly communicated to opposite party No. 4, without which it is defective. We do not see anything in Rule 12 to support this contention. The order, which appears at page 35 of the Paper Book, purports to be issued in the name of the Governor. It is also signed by the Under -Secretary, Veterinary Department, Fishery Branch, Government of Assam and is apparently passed in exercise of the power conferred on the Under -Secretary under the rules of executive business framed by the Governor in pursuance of the power given under the Articles of the Constitution. As Dr. Medhi insisted on the production of the orders passed in the case, we had to send for the Secretariat file and we noticed from that file that the Minister directly passed the order in on 12 -1 -1967.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.