SAMABAI SAMITI LTD Vs. ASSAM FISHERY DEV CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first writ application has been filed by a Co-operative Society and the 2nd writ application is by an individual. Both the matters are taken up together as they relate to the same question of law and facts. What has happened in the case is that a fishery be. No. 35, Pokoria Fishery was settled with respondent No. 3 for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 12.3.2001 to 12.3.2004. Respondent No. 3 is a Co-operative Society, but the question is that the settlement was made by respondent No. 1 i.e, AFDC and the settlement was made not by tender system, but by resorting to the proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules by making direct settlement. This question has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court reported in 2001(1) GLT 454 (M/s. 129 Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd.-Vs-Assam Fisheries Devp. Corporation Ltd. and Ors.) wherein the Full Bench has pointed out that the AFDC does not have the power to make direct settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, that power is available only to the Govt/State Authority. THE next question is that whether this order of settlement can be considered to be an extension. THE Full Bench has pointed out that in an appropriate cases, AFDC shall have the power to grant extension. That power is available to them. THE Full Bench in the judgment itself has pointed out that this power is circumscribed alone. First the Corporation must make an assessment off the loss and find out the loss and thereafter in order to make good the loss or for some: other exceptional circumstances, the: extension may be granted. In this particular case, even if it is considered to be a case of extension, it is for a period of 3 years and that also without ascertaining the loss stated to be suffered by respondent No. 3.

(2.) IN view of the matter, the order off settlement available at Annexure-III to the writ application shall stand quashed. The matter now shall go back to the authority to make settlement in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from today. It is needless to say that for this period of 45 days, respondent No. 3 shall be allowed to continue in possession of the fishery on making necessary payment. This disposes of these writ applications.