Judgment · High Court

The respondent No. 1 herein is a cooperative society, registered under the relevant statute, and respondent No.2 is the President of the said so ciety. They filed a writ petition seeking to get set aside and quashed the order , dated 22.04.2008, passed by the State respondents, extending the period of set tlement of No. 5 Sonai Nadi Part-III Meen Mahal fisher, by 2(two) years, in favo ur of the appellant herein, which is also a cooperative society registered under the relevant statute. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 1851 of 2008.

By judgment and order, dated 18.06.2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside and quashed the impugned order, dated 22.04.2008, aforementi oned on the ground that the present appellant had been enjoying the settlement f or the last about 19 years and the extension, so granted in the present case, wa s against law inasmuch as extension, if any, of the settlement, can be granted, in exercise of powers Rule 8(6) of the Fishery Rules, 1953, under special circum stances so as to enable a lessee recover the loss, which the lessee might have s ustained. By judgment and order under appeal, the State respondents have also be en directed to settle the fishery, in question, by resorting to tender process i n terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules.

Aggrieved by the fact that the said order of settlement, dated 22.04.200 8, has been set aside and quashed and the fishery, in question, has been directe d to be settled by resorting to tender process, respondent No.5, in the writ pet ition, has preferred this appeal.

We have heard Mr. N.S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant has been, admittedly, enjoying th 5. e lease of the fishery, in question, for the last more than 19 years, and in vie w also of the fact that the extension, in present case, was granted, in favour o f the appellant, by the impugned order, dated 22.04.2008, without making any spe cial case in terms of Rule 8(b) of the said Rules, we are of the view that the l earned Single Judge was justified in setting aside and quashing the said order o f extension. This apart, ordinarily, a fishery should be settled by resorting to tender process as has been provided in Rule 12 of the said Rules and it is only in exceptional circumstances that the State Government may, for good reasons, a llow extension of the settlement period in order to enable a lessee recover his loss. In the present case, no such reason was assigned, while granting extension . Hence, the extension of the period of lease, in favour of the present appellan t was not only wrong, but also arbitrarily. Above all, when the appellant had be en enjoying the settlement of the said fishery for the last more than 19 years, the Government was bound to settle the said fishery by way of tender process, un less a case of exercise of discretion under Rule8 (6) could have been made out. Since no case for extension could be made out by the appellant, the judgment and order, under appeal, needs, to our mind, no interference.

It has been sought to be contented, on behalf of the appellant, that the settlement of the lease has been set aside on the writ application being made b y non-existent society. Apart from the fact that such a plea cannot be belatedly taken, we have examined, on the request of the learned counsel for the appellan t, the registration certificate, dated 09.04.2008, issued by the District Fisher y Development Officer, Morigaon, which shows that the writ petitioner is a regis tered cooperative society under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949, and a ll the members of the said society are actual fishermen by profession. Moreover, a copy of the said certificate has been addressed to Shri Dhiren Das as Preside nt, Ouguri Katahguri Bhurbhanda Matshyajibi Samabai Samity Ltd., Morigaon. It is necessary to point out that the writ petition was filed by Oujari Kataguri Bhur bandha Matshyajibi Samabai Samity Ltd. as the writ petitioner No1 with Shri Dhir en Das aforementioned as No.2, as its President. We do not, therefore, find any force in the submissions, made on behalf of the appellant, that the writ petitio ner No.1 is a non-existent cooperative society. Because of what have been pointed out above, we find no reason to interf 7. ere with the findings, contained in the judgment and order under appeal and/or t he directions given therein.

tand dismissed. In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly s

No order as to costs.