129 HARIA DUBLING MEEN SAMABAY SAMITI LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr A.K. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed. The appellant, M/s 129 Haria Dublong Meen Samabay Samiti Ltd., is a registered co-operative society and it is alleged that the society consists of 100% fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes community. The fishery, No. 129 Haria Dublong Fishery, had been settled in favour of the appellant society by the State Government by order dated 19.11.1999 for a period of seven years after cancelling the then existing lease which had been granted by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for a period of seven years ending in 2006. The appellant society deposited Rs.4131/- as security and also paid instalments for the period ending on 18.11.2000. The settlement in favour of the appellant was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing WP(C) No. 5828/1999. The said writ petition was disposed of on 21.8.2000 quashing the settlement in favour of the petitioner and the case was referred back to the authority for settlement afresh within a period of two months permitting the appellant society to continue during the interim period.

(3.) The appellant society had filed a petition dated 5.9.2000 before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department for settlement of the aforesaid fishery. (It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that a petition was also made to the Corporation). However, the State Government, vide order dated 23.10.2000 settled the fishery with respondent No. 5 for a period of five years ending in 2005. This settlement order made by the State Government in favour of respondent No. 5 was challenged by the present appellant writ petitioner) by filing WP(C) No. 6001/2000. The writ petition has been dismissed and the settlement in favour of respondent No. 5 has been upheld by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 3.1.2002. It was held that respondent No. 5 was not a defaulter and no fault could be found in the settlement by the State Government in favour of respondent: No. 5. A point was also raised before the learned Single Judge that pursuant to notification dated 22.11.95 issued by the State Government, the fishery in question came to be vested in the Corporation and, therefore, the management etc. which will include settlement, had to be done by the Corporation and not by the State Government. This point of the appellant (writ petitioner) was repelled by the learned Single Judge by observing that the notification dated 22.11.95 does not appear to have been issued in exercise of the powers under sub-clause (c) (ii) of Rule 8 of the Assam Fishery Rules and, therefore, the statutory powers of direct settlement or extension of any settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 are plenary powers which vest in the State authority. The: same point has been reiterated before us. However, we may state that the notification itself has not been brought on record.