PALARPAM FISHERY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dt. 13.8.1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1342 of 1996 is the subject matter under challenge in this writ appeal.

(2.) The dispute relates to the settlement of Fishery namely No. 23/24/57 Chilochy Beel Fishery, hereinafter referred to as 'Fishery', in the District of Barpeta. It is an admitted position that the said Fishery was settled with the present appellant (the writ petitioner- Society), namely M/s Palarpam Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd., for a period of 5 years from 15.5.1995 to 14.5.2000 vide Government order dated 27.4.1995, but on the complaint of Respondent No. 3-Society, namely, M/s Mondia Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd., the authority concerned cancelled the settlement of the said Fishery vide order/Memo No. FISH-8/85/290 dated 17.6.1995. The present appellant-Society had challenged the validity of the said Government Order dt. 17.6.1995 under Civil Rule No. 2512 of 1995 and the learned single judge of this Court disposed of the said Civil Rule No. 2512/1995 on the 20th Sept/1995, thereby setting aside the said order dated 17.6.1995, and thus allowed the writ petition of the present appellant-Society. On appeal under Writ Appeal No. 480/1995 made by the present respondent-Society, the appellate Court dismissed the writ appeal on 5.12.1995 with certain observation and direction, which are reproduced as hereunder : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, however, we are of the opinion that from the facts which have been found by the learned single Judge, it is clear that the witnesses were examined by the Extra Assistant Commissioner in absence of the petitioner/respondent No. J and a statement has been made by Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No. 1 that even the copy of the report was not supplied at the time of hearing by the Minister concerned. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the Minister could not rely on a report which was being used against the petitioner/respondent No. 1 for cancelling the lease. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority can call for additional evidence but the additional evidence which toe quasi-judicial authority has asked for, will have to be supplied to the parties concerned so that they may have an opportunity of producing evidence in rebuttal. That having been not done, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge sufferes from any Vice requiring interference by this Court. Learned single Judge in para-12 of the judgment has recorded a finding to the effect that the order made by the learned single Judge shall not be a bar for the authority to lake appropriate steps by holding proper inquiry as required by the rules of principle of natural justice. We completely agree with the aforesaid observations, as we have already observed that if the authority wants to use any material against a party, the same can only be done after affording an opportunity to that party. Subject to the aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that the present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs." Thereafter in pursuance of the aforesaid directions made by this Court in the Writ Appeal No. 480 of 1995 an inquiry was conducted regarding complaint and allegation made against the present appellant-Society, and on the basis of the inquiry report the competent authority passed an order on 8.3.1996 settling the said Fishery to and in favour of the respondent No. 3 Society for a period of five years commencing from 8.3.1996 to 7.3.2001, subject to the observance of usual terms and conditions laid down in the Rules of Settlement of Fisheries. Being aggrieved by the said order dt. 8.3.1996, the present appellant-Society filed a Writ Petition being No. Civil Rule No. 1342 of 1996 challenging the validity of the said order of 8.3.1996. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on 13.8.1996. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.8.1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, the appellant-Society filed this present writ appeal.

(3.) According to the appellant-Society, if the Government discharged the function of the quasijudicial body it is obligatory on their part to furnish a copy of the enquiry report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, to the appellant-Society, which has been denied to them and as such there is violation of principle of natural justice. Sri S.N. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri U. Bhuyan, for the appellant-Society submitted that the respondent-Government did not comply with the judgment and order dated 5.12.1995 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 480 of 1995 while passing the impugned order dated 8.3.1996, in as such as the respondent-Government failed to supply the copy of the said enquiry report. It is also contended by Sri Bhuyan, learned senior counsel, that had a copy of the enquiry report been furnished to the appellant-Society, the appellant could have rebutted the same by filing affidavit. Therefore no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded by the authority concerned before passing the impugned order, Sri Bhuyan contended. It is also the case of the appellant-Society that the decision of the learned single Judge is erroneous and contrary to law as well as the observations/directions of this Court made in Writ Appeal No. 480 of 1995 and in that view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside.