TINSUKIA MIN SAMABAI SAMITY LTD. Vs. JT. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of Mandamus or a writ of like nature directing the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order dated 20 -8 -1967 issued by the Government and also for a writ of Certiorari or a writ of like nature for cancelling the Government's order settling the Dibru Reserve Fishery Mahal No. 3 for 1971 -74 with Respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered Co -operative Society constituted by members belonging to the scheduled caste. The Dibru Reserve Fishery Mahal No. 3 was settled with Rangagora Fishermen Co -operative Society Ltd., respondent No. 5 for the previous period ending on 15th May, 1971. Both the Petitioner, Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd. and the Respondent No. 5, Rangagora Fishermen Co -operative Society Ltd. applied to the State Government on 6 -3 -1971 and 9 -3 -1971 respectively for direct settlement of the said fishery Mahal for a period of 3 years from 16 -8 -1971 to 15 -5 -1974.

(3.) BEFORE the petitioner could take necessary steps for depositing security money and performing other formalities in pursuance of the aforesaid order of settlement made in its favour, the petitioner received a copy of another order vide Memo No. FOR. 146/67/190 dated 20 -8 -1971 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department, whereby the Conservator of Forests was informed that the Governor of Assam was pleased to cancel the order issued vide Government letter No. For.146/67/184 dated 11 -8 -1971 settling the fishery in question with the Petitioner Society. Thereafter, on enquiry the petitioner came to learn that the fishery in question had been settled with Respondent No. 5 for the said period at Rs. 1,75,000/ - on the very same day on which the settlement made with the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner states that even though it applied for certified copy of the order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5, it was not supplied with the same.