Before going to the issues involved which would require an adjudication, the facts of the respective cases can be summed up and put in the following manner
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
Page No.# 1/57
GAHC010060502022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2192/2022
MAHMUD HUSSAIN
S/O HARUN RASHID R/O VILL. SINGIRBOND PART II, P.O. HAJARIGRAM
DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788101
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 5 ORS.
A GOVT. OF ASSAM ENTERPRISE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIP ROAD,
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
2:MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SONAI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 1/57
GAHC010060502022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2192/2022
MAHMUD HUSSAIN
S/O HARUN RASHID R/O VILL. SINGIRBOND PART II, P.O. HAJARIGRAM
DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788101
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 5 ORS.
A GOVT. OF ASSAM ENTERPRISE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIP ROAD,
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36, KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
2:MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD
CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SONAI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. CACHAR
Page No.# 2/57
ASSAM
PIN-78811
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BHAGABATI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC
WP(C)/2783/2022
MAHENDRA DAS
S/O- LT. GHANASHYAM DAS
R/O- VILL. GILLIPARA
P.O. SORBHOG
DIST. BARPETA
PIN- 781317
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM AND 4
ORS.
FISHERY DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.- 781006.
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
V.I.P. ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 36
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
V.I.P. ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 36
4:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
V.I.P. ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 36
5:THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR
HEAD QUARTER- SARTHEBARI REGIONAL OFFICE
DIST.- BARPETA.
------------
Advocate for : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY
Page No.# 3/57
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
WP(C)/2869/2022
RAMESH KR DAS AND ANR
S/O- LT. SARBESWAR DAS
R/O- MORIGAON
P.O.- AZARBARI
VILL.- RAJAGAON
DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105.
2: BHUBANESWAR DAS
S/O-
R/O- VILL. SOLMARI
P.O.- BHURBANDHA
DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782104.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3 ORS
BEING REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781036
KAMRUP(METRO) DISTRICT
ASSAM.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781036
KAMRUP(METRO) DISTRICT
ASSAM.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
Page No.# 4/57
GUWAHATI- 781036
KAMRUP(METRO) DISTRICT
ASSAM.
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
LOWER ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST.- BONGAIGAON
PIN- 783383
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MS. U BARUAH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 3 ORS
WP(C)/3042/2022
BIMAL KRISHNA DAS
S/O- LT. BHUPESH CHANDRA DAS
VILL. GOVINDAPUR PART-III
P.O. GOVINDAPUR WEST
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788804.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
V.I.P. ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781036.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
V.I.P. ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781036.
3:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (I/C)
BARAK VALLEY REGION
Page No.# 5/57
AFDC LTD.
CACHAR
SILCHAR-9.
4:THE ASSTT. PROJECT MANAGER
BARAK VALLEY REGION
AFDC LTD.
CACHAR
SILCHAR-9.
------------
Advocate for : MR. B J GHOSH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD. AND 3 ORS.
WP(C)/4347/2022
SIVA BHUYAN AND ANR.
S/O LATE TULASHI RAM BHUYAN
R/O EAST MILAN NAGAR
C.R. BUILDING
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM-786001
2: DIHING NODI PANCHIMANCHAL NACHALIK MIN SAMABAY SAMITEE
LTD
SITUATED AT VILL-DEHING THAN GAON
P.O.-ITAKHOLI
DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWHAATI-781006
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMNET CORPORATION LTD.
Page No.# 6/57
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
5:THE PROJECT MANAGER
AFDC LTD.
UPPER ASSAM REGION
DIBRUGARH
DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM-786001
------------
Advocate for : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
WP(C)/3348/2022
AKASHI GANGA RURAL DEVELOPMENT NON-GOVT. ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT- SRI GANESH DAS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
SON OF LATE TULSI DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHELOWGURI
P.O- BHELOWGURI
P.S. SAMAGURI
IN THE DISTRICT OF NAGAON
ASSAM. (STAKE HOLDER MANAGEMENT).
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 2 ORS.
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 781032.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
Page No.# 7/57
GUWAHATI- 781032.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 781032.
------------
Advocate for : MR. P MAHANTA
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD. AND 2 ORS.
WP(C)/2894/2022
M/S BISHKHOWA MACH DHARA AND UNNAYAN SS LTD AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SURESH BISWAS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
SON OF LATE SUREN BISWAS
RESIDENT OF BISHKHOWA
P.O. BISKHOWA
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783334.
2: SURESH BISWAS
S/O- LATE SUREN BISWAS
R/O- VILL.- BISHKHOWA PT.- IV
P.O. BISKHOWA
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783334.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4
ORS
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
Page No.# 8/57
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(METRO) DISTRICT
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (METRO) DISTRICT
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
LOWER ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST.- BONGAIGAON
PIN- 783383
ASSAM
5:THE JUNIOR ENGINEER (SENIOR GRADE)
LOWER ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 783383.
------------
Advocate for : MS. U BARUAH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 4 ORS
WP(C)/4206/2022
SUNIL HAZARIKA
S/O LATE BHUPEN HAZARIKA
R/O VILL-TETELICHARA
P.O.-TETELICHARA
KAMPUR
NAGAON DISTRICT
ASSAM
PIN-782426
Page No.# 9/57
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3
ORS
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
UPPER ASSAM AND MIDDLE ASSAM ZONE
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 3 ORS
WP(C)/2817/2022
M/S 129 HARIA DABLONG MIN S.S. LTD. AND ANR.
REP. BY ITS SECY. KUSHAL DAS
AGE- 43 YRS
S/O- LATE BOLO RAM DAS
Page No.# 10/57
R/O- VILLAGE AMKATA
P.O- KHULAGAON
P.S- JAGIROAD
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782411
2: KUSHAL DAS
S/O- LATE BOLO RAM DAS
R/O- VILLAGE AMKATA
P.O- KHULAGAON
P.S- JAGIROAD
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782411
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
MIDDLE ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
KARMARI NANDINI BEEL
DIST- MORIGAON
Page No.# 11/57
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MRS. U BARUAH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD. AND 3 ORS.
WP(C)/2987/2022
KARIMGANJ KALYAN PARISHAD
(A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION)
VILL. SAGARPAR
P.O. CHATAL
P.S. KARIMGANJ
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788720
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SHRI SUDHIR ROY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O- LATE NARENDRA ROY
R/O- VILL. KHAGAIL
P.O. CHATAL
P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788720.
VERSUS
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
Page No.# 12/57
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781036.
4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BARAK VALLEY REGION
RONGPUR
SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788009.
5:THE PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BARAK VALLEY REGION
RONGPUR
SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788009.
6:THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BARAK VALLEY REGION
RONGPUR
SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788009.
------------
Advocate for : MR. P D NAIR
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
AND 5 ORS.
WP(C)/2786/2022
AJOY BISWAS
S/O SUBHAS CHANDRA BISWAS
R/O GAURIPUR
Page No.# 13/57
P.O.-GAURIPUR
P.S.-GUARIPUR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS.
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
LOWER ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST-BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783383
------------
Advocate for : MRS. U BARUAH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD. AND 3 ORS.
Page No.# 14/57
WP(C)/2955/2022
MAHENDRA DAS
S/O- LATE GHANASHYAM DAS
R/O- VILLAGE GILLIPARA
P.O- SORBHOG
P.S- SORBHOG
DIST- BARPETA
PIN-781317
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AND 9 ORS.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY-781006
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
REP. BY ITS. MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
4:THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
5:THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR
HEAD QUARTER
SARTHEBARI REGIONAL OFFICE
DIST- BARPETA
6:PAKORIA FISHERY
Page No.# 15/57
IN THE DISTRICT OF MORIGAON
REP. BY ITS STAKE HOLDER TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
7:SARAN FISHERY
IN THE DISTRICT OF MORIGAON
REP. BY ITS STAKE HOLDER TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
8:GHORAJAN I AND II FISHERY
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP
REP. BY ITS STAKE HOLDER TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
9:GORJAN BULATJAN FISHERY
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP
REP. BY ITS STAKE HOLDER TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
10:RUPAIBALI FISHERY
IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
REP. BY ITS STAKE HOLDER TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M)
Page No.# 16/57
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
FISHERY appearing for THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AND 9 ORS.
WP(C)/2972/2022
NISAR AHMED
S/O- LT SAJAFAR ALI
R/O- VILL. NALUA
P.O. JALAL NAGAR
TE
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788712.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY MD
AFDC LTD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-36.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
AFDC LTD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-36.
3:THE ASSTT. PROJECT MANAGER
AFDC LTD
BARAK VALLEY REGION
SILCHAR-9.
------------
Advocate for : MR B SINHA
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.
AND 2 ORS.
Page No.# 17/57
WP(C)/2288/2022
M/S BATGAON NAYAPARA MEEN SAMABAI SAMITEE LIMITED
A REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY JAYDEV DAS
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SON OF LATE NABEDEEP DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BATGAON NAYAPARA
P.O.- BATGAON
P.S. BARPETA
PIN- 781305
DISTRICT BARPETA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 781006
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781036
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. S KATAKI
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND ANR
WP(C)/3046/2022
RAJIB HAZARIKA
S/O SRI TULENDRA HAZARIKA
R/O VILL-GUIMARI
P.O.-PUB GUIMARI
P.S.-KAMPUR
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 18/57
PIN-782425
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
FISHERY DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
2:THE ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM
3:THE ASSAM FISHSERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MS N SAIKIA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
WP(C)/4202/2022
M/S BILASHIPARA MAHAKUMA FISHERY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD AND
ANR
VILL- AKLAPARA
P.O- HATIPOTA
P.S- CHAPAR
BILASPARA SUB DIVISION
PIN-783348
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
Page No.# 19/57
2: PRASANNA BARMAN
CHAIRMAN
BILASHIPARA MAHKUMA FISHERY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
VILL- CHANDARDINGA
P.O- HATIPOTA
P.S- CHAPAR
PIN-783348
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4
ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
4:THE SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
LOWER ASSAM ZONAL OFFICE
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Page No.# 20/57
ABHAYAPURI
DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783383
5:THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER (APM I/C
DHUBRI)
LOWER ASSAM ZONAL OFFICE
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783383
6:ANKAR CHANDRA DAS
S/O AKUL CHANDRA DAS
R/O FAKIRANIR JHAR PT-I
P.O. BORKANDA
P.S. BILASIPARA
DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN CODE 783348.
------------
Advocate for : MR D J MEDHI
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 4 ORS
WP(C)/4273/2022
DHARANI DAS AND ANR
S/O- LATE CHANARAM DAS
R/O- VILLAGE KANIDOL
P.O- KHANDAJAN
DIST- DARRANG
P.S- SIPAJHAR
ASSAM
2: GAJEN DAS
S/O- LATE DEVIRAM DAS
R/O- VILLAGE KANIDOL
P.O- KHANDAJAN
Page No.# 21/57
DIST- DARRANG
P.S- SIPAJHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3
ORS (H)
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
UPPER ASSAM AND MIDDLE ASSAM ZONE
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 3 ORS (H)
Page No.# 22/57
WP(C)/2913/2022
M/S VIVEKANANDA ATMA SAHAYAK GOT AND ANR
MORIGAON
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI LANI CHANDRA DAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE SUKUMAR DAS
R/O VILL-KUSUMPUR
P.O.-BURABURI
P.S.-MAYONG
DIST-MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782411
2: NIGAMANANDA SARKAR
S/O SRI NARAYAN SARKAR
R/O VILL- LECHARI BORI
P.O.-BURGAON
P.S.-MAYONG
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782411
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3
ORS
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
BIMALA PRASAD CHALIHA ROAD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
Page No.# 23/57
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP(M) DISTRICT
ASSAM
4:THE PROJECT MANAGER
LOWER ASSAM REGION
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
ABHAYAPURI
DIST- BONGAIGAON
PIN-783383
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MRS. U BARUAH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 3 ORS
WP(C)/3188/2022
DHUMKAR FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD AND ANR
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI SANJAY DAS
S/O. LT. SUMANTA DAS
VILL. DHUMKAR
P.O. KALAIN
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788815.
2: JAKIR AHMED
S/O. TAMJID ALI
VILL. DHUMKAR
P.O. KALAIN
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788815.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2
ORS
(A GOVT. OF ASSAM ENTERPRISE) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-36
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
Page No.# 24/57
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI-781036
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3:THE ASSTT. PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
BARAK VALLEY REGION
SILCHAR-788809
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. M BHAGABATI
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 2 ORS
WP(C)/4346/2022
KANAI BISWAS
S/O NIRMAL BISWAS
R/O MAJARATI VILLAGE
P.O. AND P.S.-SAMAGURI
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM-782140
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3:THE MANGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
Page No.# 25/57
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
------------
Advocate for : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
WP(C)/2161/2022
M/S PALLARPAM FISHERY SAMABAI SAMITEE LIMITED
A REGISTERED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REP. BY ITS SECY. SITA NATH DAS
AGE ABOUT-47YRS
R/O- VILLAGE NIZ BAGHBAR
P.O- BAGHBAR
PIN-781308
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3 ORS (E)
REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AFDCL
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 36
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AFDCL
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI- 36
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE PROJECT MANAGER
AFDC
BARPETA
Page No.# 26/57
4:JAGADISH DAS
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O- LATE NABADIP AS
R/O- VILLAGE NIJBAGHBAR
P.O- BAGHBAR
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781308
------------
Advocate for : MR. S KATAKI
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 3 ORS (E)
WP(C)/3043/2022
SIVA BHUYAN AND ANR.
S/O LATE TULASHI RAM BHUYAN
R/O EAST MILAN NAGAR
C.R. BUILDING
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM-786001
2: DIHING NODI PANCHIMANCHAL NACHALIK MIN SAMABAY SAMITTEE
LTD
SITUATED AT VILL-DEHING THAN GAON
P.O.-ITAKHOLI
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Page No.# 27/57
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
4:THE GENERAL MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI-781036
5:THE PROJECT MANAGER
AFDC LTD.
UPPER ASSAM REGION
DIBRUGARH
DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM-786001
------------
Advocate for : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
WP(C)/2755/2022
KANAI BISWAS
S/O- NIRMAL BISWAS
R/O- MAJARATI VILLAGE
P.O. AND P.S. SAMAGURI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM- 782140.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FISHERIES DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.- 781006.
2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD GUWAHATI- 781036
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
CHACHAL
VIP ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781036.
Page No.# 28/57
4:SMT. JURI DAS
D/O- LT. RABIN DAS
R/O- SAMAGURI BEELPAR (SAMAGURI GRANT)
P.O. AND P.S. SAMAGURI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM- 781140.
------------
Advocate for : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
WP(C)/2862/2022
BIMAL KRISHNA DAS
S/O LT. BHUPESH CHANDRA DAS
VILL-GOVINDAPUR PART-III
P.O.-GOVINDAPUR WEST
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788804
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4
ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM-781036
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
V.I.P ROAD
CHACHAL
GUWAHATI
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM-781036
3:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (I/C)
BARAK VALLEY REGION
AFDC LTD.
CACHAR
SILCHAR-9
4:THE ASSTT. PROJECT MANAGER
Page No.# 29/57
BARAK VALLEY REGION
AFDC LTD
CACHAR
SILCHAR-9
5:PRABITRA DAS
S/O SRI SURESH DAS
VILL-NIZ-FULBARI
P.O.-SHIALTEK
P.S.-KATIGORAH
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. B J GHOSH
Advocate for : SC
AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED AND 4 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Date of Hearing : 28.07.2022.
Date of Judgment : 21.09.2022.
Judgement & Order
The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is sought to be invoked in this bunch of writ petitions which arise out of a
similar action taken by the Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. (for short
AFDC). The action, which is impugned, pertains to cancellation of settlement orders of
various Beels/ Fisheries in the State of Assam with the petitioners. In gist, the grounds
of challenge in the petitions are jurisdictional error, violation of the principles of natural
justice and not taking into consideration the issue of investment made by the
petitioners pursuant to such settlement. On the other hand, the justification of the
AFDC, in brief, is that the settlements, which have been cancelled, were done in a
manner not recognised by law, more specifically, the Assam Fisheries Rules (for short
hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and therefore, there was no settlement in the
Page No.# 30/57
eyes of law which was required to be rectified. The authorities have also taken a plea
that by the action adopted for cancellation of the settlements, a new process would be
initiated strictly in accordance with law and by following the guidelines of transparency
and fairness in matters of distribution of State largesse.
2. Before going to the issues involved which would require an adjudication, the
facts of the respective cases can be summed up and put in the following manner.
3. WP(C)/2192/2022 has been instituted in respect of Banskandi Beel in the district
of Cachar which was notified against Sl. No. 40 in the Tender Notice dated
14.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, an NIT was issued by the
Managing Director, AFDC dated 18.02.2020 calling for tenders for the aforesaid Fishery
for a period of 7 years, in which the petitioner had participated. Subsequently, vide an
order dated 17.06.2020 the aforesaid Fishery was directed to be managed by the
Project Manager by engaging the petitioner as stake holder for a period of 4 years
which could be extended to 7 years. Accordingly, the petitioner, as a stake holder, and
another fisherman, Manjur Ahmed entered into an agreement with the AFDC and the
petitioner claims to have deposited an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- as part payment and
the Deed of Agreement was executed on 20.06.2020 when the possession was
handed over. The petitioner claims that the Fishery, in question, was managed
properly wherein, further investments were made by the petitioner. The petitioner
further submits that the Fishery, in question, was not properly demarcated which
caused inconvenience to him. However, suddenly, the impugned action was taken and
vide a fresh NIT dated 14.03.2022 whereby, 54 nos. of Beels were enlisted for
settlement.
4. WP(C)/2755/2022 has been instituted in respect of Samaguri Beel in the district
of Nagaon. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an order dated 26.10.2021
Page No.# 31/57
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was engaged with the aforesaid
Fishery as a Stake Holder under PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be
extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have deposited the stipulated amount of
Rs.9,00,000/- and entered into an agreement with the AFDC on 15.11.2021. The
petitioner contends that he, as a stake holder, invested huge amount on various
counts and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in question.
However, suddenly, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued cancelling all
the settlement orders of as many as 44 Beels, which were made earlier without calling
tender, including that with the petitioner dated 26.10.2021 relating to Samaguri Beel.
5. WP(C)/2783/2022 has been instituted in respect of Sarbhog Beel in the district
of Barpeta. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Board of Directors’
decision of the AFDC, vide an order dated 12.03.2020 issued by the Managing
Director, AFDC, the petitioner was settled with the aforesaid Fishery as a Stake Holder
under PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years after
satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. By the aforesaid order
dated 12.03.2020, the Project Supervisor was directed to manage the Fishery, in
question, with the petitioner under PPP mode for 4 years which could be extended to
7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value.
Accordingly, the petitioner, as Stake Holder invested huge amount on various counts
and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. However,
suddenly, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued cancelling the settlement
order. It is further contended that by the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2022 while
cancelling all the settlement orders of 44 Beels, 5 nos. of similarly situated Beel in the
district of Cachar have not been interfered with.
6. WP(C)/2786/2022 has been instituted in respect of Motir Kuti Beel in the district
Page No.# 32/57
of Dhubri. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an order dated 12.08.2020
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was settled with the aforesaid
Fishery as a Stake Holder under Direct Management Mode for a period of 4 years
which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with
certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into an agreement (page 25
of the writ petition) with the AFDC and as a Stake Holder, invested huge amount on
various counts and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in
question. However, by the same impugned order dated 08.04.2022 all the settlement
orders which were made earlier without calling tender, including that of the petitioner
dated 12.08.2020 were cancelled.
7. WP(C)/2817/2022 has been instituted in respect of Karmari Nandini Beel in the
district of Morigaon which is enlisted against the Sl. No. 23 of the impugned order
dated 08.04.2022. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated
23.03.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with
the aforesaid Fishery as a Stake Holder under the Share Basis Fishing Management
system for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory
completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioners invested
huge amount on various counts and undertaken various developmental activities of
the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued.
8. WP(C)/2862/2022 has been instituted in respect of Sibnarayanpur Anua Beel in
the district of Cachar which was notified against Sl. No. 44 in the impugned order
dated 08.04.2022 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that
earlier, vide an order dated 24.02.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the
petitioner was settled with the aforesaid Fishery. By the aforesaid order dated
24.02.2021, the respondent no. 2 authorised the petitioner to operate the Fishery, in
question, initially under the PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be extended
Page No.# 33/57
to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value.
Accordingly, the petitioner, as Stake Holder entered into an agreement on 20.04.2021
with the AFDC and the petitioner claims to have invested substantial amounts on
various counts. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued.
9. WP(C)/2869/2022 has been instituted in respect of Dandua Beel in the district of
Morigaon. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated 19.08.2020
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was settled with the aforesaid
Fishery under the Direct Management system for a period of 4 years which could be
extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the AFDC on
12.10.2020 and as stake holders, invested huge amount on various counts and
undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued.
10. WP(C)/2894/2022 has been instituted in respect of Kalidanga Group Fishery in
the district of Dhubri. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated
23.03.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with
the aforesaid Fishery. By the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2020, the Project Manager
was directed to manage the Fishery, in question, with the petitioners under PPP mode
for 4 years which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years
with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into an agreement
with the AFDC on 22.05.2020 and as Stake Holders, invested huge amount on various
counts and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in question.
Therefore, without prior notice, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued.
11. WP(C)/2913/2022 has been instituted in respect of Bormanoha Beel in the
district of Morigaon. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated
Page No.# 34/57
19.11.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with
the aforesaid Fishery under the PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be
extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioners, as Stake Holders have made substantial
investments and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in
question. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued.
12. WP(C)/2955/2022 has been instituted in respect of Sarbhog Beel in the district
of Barpeta which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated 29.04.2022
(Annexure 5 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 12.03.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery under the PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which
could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain
targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioner as a Stake Holder, invested huge amount on
various counts and undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in
question. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued and a fresh
NIT dated 29.04.2022 was issued by the respondent no. 3 for fresh settlement of 37
fisheries out of 44 fisheries that were cancelled by the order dated 08.04.2022.
13. WP(C)/2972/2022 has been instituted in respect of Rani Meghna Beel in the
district of Karimganj. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an order dated
25.02.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner along with Shri
Abdul Jalil was settled with the aforesaid Fishery as Stake Holders under the PPP Mode
for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory
completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioner entered
into agreement with the AFDC on 28.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner as Stake
Holder, invested huge amount on various counts and undertaken various
developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned orders
Page No.# 35/57
dated 08.04.2022 and 13.04.2022 were issued.
14. WP(C)/2987/2022 has been instituted in respect of Sagar Beel in the district of
Karimganj which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated 29.04.2022
(Annexure 15 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 14.08.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7
years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly,
the petitioner entered into an agreement with the AFDC on 11.09.2020 and, as a
Stake Holder, invested huge amount on various counts and undertaken various
developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 13.04.2022 was issued cancelling all the settlements and a fresh NIT dated
29.04.2022 was issued by the respondent no. 3.
15. WP(C)/3042/2022 has been instituted in respect of Sibnarayanpur Anua Beel in
the district of Cachar which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated
29.04.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an order dated 24.02.2021
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was settled with the aforesaid
Fishery under the PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7
years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly,
the petitioner entered into an agreement with the AFDC on 24.04.2021 and invested
huge amount on various counts and undertaken various developmental activities of
the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued
and a fresh NIT dated 29.04.2022 was issued by the respondent no. 3.
16. WP(C)/3043/2022 has been instituted in respect of Kalakhuwa Borbeel in the
district of Dibrugarh which was notified against Sl. No. 1 in the impugned Tender
Notice dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). It is the case of the
Page No.# 36/57
petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated 18.02.2021 issued by the Managing
Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with the aforesaid Fishery. By the
aforesaid order dated 18.02.2021, the Assistant Project Manager was directed to
manage the said Fishery by engaging the petitioners as Stake Holders for a period of 4
years which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with
certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into an agreement on
31.03.2021 with the AFDC and the petitioners claim to have deposited substantial
amounts on various dates. The petitioners claim that the Fishery, in question, was
managed properly. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued
cancelling all the settlements and a fresh NIT dated 19.04.2022 was issued.
17. WP(C)/3046/2022 has been instituted in respect of Dimow Beel in the district of
Nagaon which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated 02.05.2022
(Annexure 15 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 13.08.2019 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery. Accordingly, the petitioner, as a Stake Holder
entered into an agreement with the AFDC and the petitioner claims to have deposited
substantial amount and the Deed of Agreement was executed on 13.08.2019. The
petitioner claim that the Fishery, in question, was managed properly wherein, further
investments were made by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated
08.04.2022 was issued cancelling all the settlements and a fresh NIT dated
02.05.2022 was issued.
18. WP(C)/3188/2022 has been instituted in respect of Dhali Beel in the district of
Cachar. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated 23.03.2020
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with the aforesaid
Fishery for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years after satisfactory
completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the petitioners entered
Page No.# 37/57
into agreement with the AFDC on 06.05.2020 and 20.05.2020. Thereafter, the
petitioners, as Stake Holders, invested huge amount on various counts and
undertaken various developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2022 was issued cancelling all the settlements.
19. WP(C)/3348/2022 has been instituted in respect of Barghuli Beel in the district
of Nagaon which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated 02.05.2022
(Annexure P to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 20.07.2017 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7
years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly,
the petitioner, as Stake Holder entered into an agreement with the AFDC. The
petitioner claim that the Fishery, in question, was managed properly wherein, further
investments were made by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated
08.04.2022 was issued and a fresh NIT dated 02.05.2022 was issued.
20. WP(C)/4202/2022 has been instituted in respect of Dakra Beel in the district of
Dhubri. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated 05.12.2020
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with the aforesaid
Fishery under PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years
after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the
petitioners entered into an agreement with the AFDC on 22.04.2020 and, as Stake
Holders, invested huge amount on various counts and undertaken various
developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 13.06.2022 was issued.
21. WP(C)/4206/2022 has been instituted in respect of Mer Beel in the district of
Nagaon. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an order dated 24.05.2021
Page No.# 38/57
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was settled with the aforesaid
Fishery under PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could be extended to 7 years
after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted value. Accordingly, the
petitioner, as Stake Holder has made substantial investments and undertaken various
developmental activities of the Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 13.06.2022 was issued.
22. WP(C)/4273/2022 has been instituted in respect of Batha Beel in the district of
Darrang. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier, vide an order dated 09.10.2020
issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioners were settled with the aforesaid
Fishery. The Project Manager was directed to manage the Fishery, in question, with
the petitioners under Model Project norm for a period of 4 years which could be
extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioners, as Stake Holders have entered into an agreement
with the AFDC vide agreement dated 01.07.2021 and thereafter made substantial
investments on various counts and undertaken various developmental activities of the
Fishery, in question. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.06.2022 was issued.
23. WP(C)/4346/2022 has been instituted in respect of Samaguri Beel in the district
of Nagaon which was notified in the impugned Tender Notice dated 17.06.2022
(Annexure 11 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 26.10.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery under PPP Mode for a period of 4 years which could
be extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioner, as Stake Holder entered into an agreement with the
AFDC and the petitioner claims to have deposited the stipulated amount of Rs.
9,00,000/- as security deposit and the Deed of Agreement was executed on
15.11.2021. The petitioner claims that the Fishery, in question, was managed properly
Page No.# 39/57
wherein, further investments were made by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 08.04.2022 was issued and a fresh NIT dated 19.04.2022 was issued.
24. WP(C)/4347/2022 has been instituted in respect of Kalakhowa Borbeel in the
district of Dibrugarh which was notified against Sl. 1 in the impugned Tender Notice
dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioners
that earlier, vide an order dated 18.02.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC,
the petitioners were settled with the aforesaid Fishery. By the aforesaid order dated
18.02.2021, the Assistant Project Manager was directed to manage the said Fishery by
engaging the petitioners as Stake Holders for a period of 4 years which could be
extended to 7 years after satisfactory completion of 4 years with certain targeted
value. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the AFDC and the
petitioners claim to have deposited substantial amounts on various counts and the
Deed of Agreement was executed on 31.03.2021. The petitioners claim that the
Fishery, in question, was managed properly wherein, further investments were made
by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 was issued and a
fresh NIT dated 19.04.2022 was issued.
25. WP(C)/2161/2022 has been instituted in respect of Chilochi Fishery in the
district of Barpeta against the cancellation order dated 14.03.2022 cancelling the
settlement of the No. 23/24/57 Chilochi Fishery in favour of the petitioner in terms of
the letter dated 15.12.2021 on the ground of default of depositing the kist money. It is
the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 28.04.2021 the Project Manager was
directed to manage the Fishery, in question, under PPP mode and on 06.05.2021 the
petitioner was handed over the possession of the said Fishery whereafter the
petitioner had deposited Rs. 1 lakh as security deposit and Rs. 2 lakhs as kist money.
The petitioner claims that the Fishery, in question, was managed properly. However,
vide letter dated 14.02.2022, the petitioner was informed to deposit arrear amount. By
Page No.# 40/57
the said letter dated 14.02.2022, the petitioner was informed that vide letter dated
15.12.2021 all the settlements made without calling tender have been cancelled and
the petitioner was asked to deposit kist money with interest. Accordingly, the
petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,84,000/- as arrear for the financial year 2021-
2022 and Rs. 3,66,666/- as kist money for the financial year 2021-2022. Therefore,
the impugned order dated 14.043.2022 was issued.
26. WP(C)/2288/2022 has been instituted in respect of Fingua Parua Beel in the
district of Barpeta which was notified in the impugned order dated 15.12.2021
(Annexure F to the writ petition). It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, vide an
order dated 28.03.2020 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC, the petitioner was
settled with the aforesaid Fishery for a period of 4 years. Accordingly, the petitioner
entered into an agreement with the AFDC and the petitioner claims to have deposited
kist money and the Deed of Agreement was executed on 28.03.2020. The petitioner
claims that the Fishery, in question, was managed properly wherein, further
investments were made by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 was issued.
27. I have heard Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in
WP(C)/4202/2022, 4206/2022, 4273/2022; Ms. U Baruah, Senior Counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C)/2786/2022, 2817/2022, 2869/2022, 2894/2022, 2913/2022; Shri
BD Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2755/2022,
3043/2022, 4346/2022, 4347/2022; Shri RKD Choudhury, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C)/2783/2022 & 2955/2022; Shri BJ Ghosh, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C)/2862/2022 & 3042/2022; Shri S Kataki, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C)/2288/2022 & 2161/2022; Shri M Bhagabati, learned counsel for
the petitioners in WP(C)/2192/2022 & 3188/2022; Ms. P Goswami, learned counsel for
the petitioner in WP(C)/3046/2022; Shri P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner
Page No.# 41/57
in WP(C)/3348/2022; Shri S Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)/2972/2022, 4202/2022 and Shri G Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)/2987/2022.
28. On the other hand, the AFDC is represented by Shri P Sarma, learned Standing
Counsel as well as Shri D Deka, learned counsel. Shri AK Hussain, learned counsel is
present for the respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/4202/2022.
29. Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the petitioners in
WP(C)/4202/2022, 4206/2022 & 4273/2022. The learned Senior Counsel submits that
the initial settlement of the Fishery, in question, was done by a tender process and
therefore, there is no illegality in the same. He submits that the earlier decision to
settle the Fishery was not a decision of any foreign body but of the AFDC itself, which
has the jurisdiction. The reason for cancellation is apparently a decision of the Full
Bench of this Court reported in the case of M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai
Samity Ltd. Vs. Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., reported in AIR
2001 Gau. 139. The said decision being an existing one, it cannot be argued that the
earlier decision to settle the Fishery was done by overlooking or ignoring the said
decision. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is a concluded
contract between the parties and that being so, the impugned decision of cancelling
the earlier settlement process and initiating a fresh settlement process is not
sustainable in law. By referring to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the learned Senior
Counsel submits that once there is a concluded contract, the parties to the same are
under a legal obligation which cannot be shrugged off. In support of his submissions,
Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the cases of State
of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra & Ors., reported in AIR 1968 SC 647; Ramesh
Chandra Mishra & Ors. Vs. Vijay Shankar & Ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 and
State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., reported in (1983) 2
Page No.# 42/57
SCC 33.
30. In the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the guidelines regarding ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. In paragraph 12, it
has been specifically laid down that a decision is only an authority for what it actually
decides. The aforesaid case has been cited to bring home the fact that the principles
laid down by the Full Bench in the case M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai
Samity Ltd. (supra), cannot be taken to be a binding precedent.
31. In the case of Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph 52 has laid down as follows:
“52. The legislation is pure and simple, self-deceptive, if we may use such
an expression with reference to a legislature-made law. The legislature is
undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away
or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws
are made under a written' Constitution, and have to conform to the dos
and don'ts of the Constitution neither prospective nor retrospective laws
can be made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The law must
satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the
accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say
twenty years ago the parties had no rights therefore, the requirements of
the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years.
We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A Legislature
cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty
years, ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights
accrued in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary,
unreasonable and a negation of history.”
Page No.# 43/57
32. Shri BD Konwar, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the petitioners in
WP(C)/2755/2022, 3043/2022, 4346/2022 & 4347/2022. The attention of this Court
has been drawn to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition wherein, it
has been stated that a huge investment of Rs. 28 lakhs (approx) has been made for
the Fishery, in question, and the fishing activities were done for 1 month whereafter,
the same was cancelled. It is further submitted that an order dated 29.04.2022 was
passed by this Court which was violated and a new tender notice was issued which is
the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/4346/2022. The learned Senior Counsel
submits that even in the PPP mode, the bid of the petitioner was found to be the
highest. So far as WP(C)/3043/2022 is concerned, the same pertains to Kalakhowa
Borbeel in the district of Dibrugarh.
33. Ms. U Baruah, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the petitioners in
WP(C)/2786/2022, 2817/2022, 2869/2022, 2894/2022 & 2913/2022. She submits that
the initial settlement was with an individual under the PPP mode. It is submitted that
as per condition 10 (ka) of the tender conditions, the settlement holder has to develop
the Fishery, in question, and take all steps for increasing the production of fish,
including release of fingerlings. In terms of the said clause, it is submitted that a huge
investment about Rs. 28 lakhs has been made.
34. Shri S Katakey, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner in
WP(C)/2161/2022 and WP(C)/2288/2022. The learned counsel submits that the
decision to cancel the settlement vide order dated 15.10.2021 was in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued. He further submits that the
allegation of being a defaulter stood obliterated as on 21.02.2022, he had deposited
the balance amount. However, by the subsequent impugned order dated 14.03.2022,
the settlement was cancelled. The second writ petition WP(C)/2288/2022 is almost on
Page No.# 44/57
similar grounds in which the concerned Fishery is Fingua Parua Beel in the district of
Barpeta. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case law of ES Reddi Vs.
Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1550 on the requirement of
adhering to the principles of natural justice.
35. Shri P Mahanta, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner in
WP(C)/3348/2022 which pertains to Barghuli Beel in the district Nagaon. His grievance
is similar to the other cases and is aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2022 of
cancellation and 02.05.2022 of calling of fresh NIT.
36. Shri S Khound, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/2869 and
2894/2022. The learned counsel has put to challenge the NIT dated 02.05.2022 on
the ground of violation of Rule 254 of the Rules which requires publication into two
newspapers. The said petitioner had earlier instituted WP(C)/2972/2022 challenging
the cancellation of his settlement.
37. Per contra, Shri P Sarma, learned Standing Counsel AFDC along with Shri D
Deka, learned counsel has submitted that all the writ petitions are misconceived and
the action taken by the AFDC is only to rectify the earlier acts which were not in
accordance with law and to initiate the process of settlement of the Fisheries, in
question, strictly in accordance with the law.
38. The learned Standing Counsel has first referred to Section 254 of the Assam
Financial Rules which mandates settlement to be done only through a tender process.
By referring to Section 10 of the Contract Act, it is submitted that the earlier
agreement was void, inasmuch as, the same was done in violation of the law holding
the field. It is categorically submitted that though a serious contention has been made
on behalf of the petitioners regarding violation of principles of natural justice, such
Page No.# 45/57
submission would not be available, inasmuch as, no right can accrue to the petitioners
through an illegal process and therefore, there can be no applicability of adherence to
the principles of natural justice. He further submits that though PPP mode, per se,
may not be illegal and may be an accepted mode for the authorities, the same has to
be done strictly by following the procedure laid down in the Rules.
39. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the principal basis for taking the
impugned action is the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra) and the impugned
action is in gross violation of the principles laid down in the said case and therefore,
no illegality can be attributed to the action of the AFDC. It is finally submitted that in
all the cases, tenders, in accordance with law, are ready to be floated and delay is
causing loss of revenue.
40. Shri Sarma, learned Standing Counsel has further argued that in the case of the
present nature, the principles of natural justice will not have any role, inasmuch as,
since the initial process was absolutely illegal, no right whatsoever, had accrued upon
the petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to any opportunity for taking a
measure to rectify the action. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel has
placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519. In
paragraphs 45 and 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follow:
“45. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles in mind, even when we find
that there is an infraction of principles of natural justice, we have to
address a further question as to whether any purpose would be served in
remitting the case to the authority to make fresh demand of amount
recoverable, only after issuing notice to show cause to the appellant. In
Page No.# 46/57
the facts of the present case, we find that such an exercise would be
totally futile having regard to the law laid down by this Court in R.C.
Tobacco (supra).
46. To recapitulate the events, the appellant was accorded certain
benefits under Notification dated July 08, 1999. This Notification stands
nullified by Section 154 of the Act of 2003, which has been given
retrospective effect. The legal consequence of the aforesaid statutory
provision is that the amount with which the appellant was benefitted
under the aforesaid Notification becomes refundable. Even after the
notice is issued, the appellant cannot take any plea to retain the said
amount on any ground whatsoever as it is bound by the dicta in R.C.
Tobacco (supra). Likewise, even the officer who passed the order has no
choice but to follow the dicta in R.C. Tobacco (supra). It is important to
note that as far as quantification of the amount is concerned, it is not
disputed at all. In such a situation, issuance of notice would be an empty
formality and we are of the firm opinion that the case stands covered by
'useless formality theory'.”
41. On the context of the scope of judicial review, Shri Sarma, learned Standing
Counsel has placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Uflex Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165.
“2. The judicial review of such contractual matters has its own limitations.
It is in this context of judicial review of administrative actions that this
Court has opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. The purpose is to check whether
the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the
Page No.# 47/57
choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts,
the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence. To
that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a
distance.”
42. Shri AK Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/4202/2022
has defended the action of the AFDC and has submitted that the initial order of
settlement was not done by following the due process of law and accordingly, the
same was cancelled vide order dated 15.12.2021. The said order was the subject
matter of challenge in WP(C)/858/2022 with regard to Dakar Beel in the district of
Dhubri. However, this Court vide order 14.02.2022 did not interfere with the same and
had only granted liberty to the petitioners to file a representation and the petitioners
be given a reasonable opportunity. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed
on 13.06.2022 which is the subject matter of challenge of the present writ petition. By
referring to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 20.07.2022, Shri Hussain, learned counsel
has submitted that such challenge has to be restricted only to the decision making
process which, in the instant case, does not suffer from any infirmity. By referring to
Annexure-B of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the learned counsel, Shri Hussain has
submitted that an order was passed by the AFDC 26.04.2022 whereby, it was stated
that in respect of four Beels, including the Dakra Beel, the Project Manager of the
respective districts directed not to interfere with the possession. The said order,
however, was put to challenge by the present respondent no. 6 as petitioner in
WP(C)/4034/2022. However, during the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC
has produced a copy of the order dated 13.06.2022 by which the settlement of the
Dakra Beel in favour of the Bilasipara Mohakuma Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. has
been cancelled. In view of the same, the aforesaid writ petition was closed vide an
order dated 17.06.2022.
Page No.# 48/57
43. Shri Alam, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner in WP(C)/2987/2022
in respect of the Sagar Beel in the district of Karimganj and the same is enlisted as Sl.
No. 43 in the cancellation order. Reference has been made to paragraph 10 of the writ
petition to show the investment made.
44. Shri AJ Ghosh, learned counsel appears for two writ petitions, namely
WP(C)/2862/2022 and WP(C)/3042/2022 in connection with Sibnarayanpur Anua Beel
and the petitioners are belonged to the Scheduled Caste category of the Maimal
community of Cachar district. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the first
tender process, huge investment has been made to the tune of Rs. 9,63,000/- and in
this regard, attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph 8 of the writ petition.
The learned counsel submits that Public Private Partnership (PPP) is not an alien
concept and therefore, the same cannot be a reason for cancelling the settlement of
the petitioner. The subsequent writ petition, WP(C)/3042/2022 is in connection with
the first writ petition wherein, a specific challenge has been made to the fresh tender
process.
45. Shri MK Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in his rejoinder
has submitted that the contention of violation of Rule 254 of the Assam Financial
Rules is misconstrued. He contends that the said Rule is a part of Chapter XII of the
Rules which is meant for the Public Works Department and does not have any
application in the AFDC. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of
M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the
learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Full Bench
has only mentioned about framing of necessary guidelines and therefore, cannot be
treated as a binding precedent and in this regard, he relies upon the case of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (supra). It is submitted that a
Constitution Bench has laid down that a decision is an authority for what it actually
Page No.# 49/57
decides. With regard to the Contract Act, Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners has submitted that the contract entered into between the parties and
the AFDC are neither void nor voidable and simply because of the absence of any
Board resolution, the same does not become illegal.
46. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been
duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully
examined.
47. The issue which arises for determination in this series of cases is as to whether
the action of the AFDC in cancelling the settlement orders in favour of the petitioners
relating to various Fisheries is sustainable in law. However, to answer the said issue, it
has to be first examined as to whether the initial settlement was done in accordance
with law. The answer to the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the settlements
made with the petitioners would also lead this Court to take into consideration the
various grounds urged by the petitioners, including the ground of violation of the
principles of natural justice before such cancellation. In other words, this Court is also
required to examine if the same yardstick with regard to the application of principles
of natural justice can be applied in case the initial order of settlement is held to be in
accordance with law and if such settlement is held to be done illegally.
48. The Rules governing the field is laid down in the Assam Fishery Rules wherein,
the public fisheries are divided in the ratio of 60:40. Under the proviso to Rule 12,
power of direct settlement is given to the Government to certain classes of people as
enumerated in the same in case of 60% Fishery.
49. It is, however, needless to add that the general principles of distribution of State
largesse, namely, maintenance of transparency and fairness have to be strictly
Page No.# 50/57
adhered to and such settlement has to be preceded by a procedure recognised by law.
50. The Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. is especially incorporated to
look into the aspect of Fishery business in the State. The role and functions of the
AFDC were the subject matters of dispute which were finally decided by a Full Bench
of this Court in the case of M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd.
(supra). In paragraph 31 of the said judgment, the following has been laid down:
“31. In view of our foregoing discussion and decisions, we answer the question
raised as follows:
1) Assam Fisheries Development Corporation has the sole authority and
jurisdiction to lease out/settle the fisheries which have been transferred or
vested with them under Rule 8(c) (11) if the Assam Fishery Rules;
2) The AFDC shall have no power to make any direct settlement as per the
proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. The Director of the AFDC shall
have the authority to make settlement and for that purpose definite guidelines
may be laid down so that there is transparency in the matter of settlement. The
need for transparency need not be reemphasized in view of the catena of
decisions of the Apex Court on the point.
3) While laying down the guidelines or resolutions the spirit of the Fishery Rules
may be given due weightage/consideration. Fishery Rules were enacted to
provide stimulus the fish production and help the population which is engaged
with the occupation of fishing. Under the Fishery Rules preference is given to
the co-operative societies formed by 100% fisherman belonging to Scheduled
Caste community and Maimal Community of Cachar. Hence the AFDC is directed
to lay down the definite guidelines in the matter so that there is no ambiguity.
Page No.# 51/57
4) As the AFDC has been found to have powers to make settlement in respect
of the fisheries vested with them they have implied power to pass orders
regarding extension of the settlement. We may however like to add here that
extension of fisheries creates unnecessary problems and as such definite
criteria or parameter may be laid down or some alternative may be found out to
give relief to the lessee In proper and suitable cases,.
5) During the course of hearing copies of the resolutions adopted by the AFDC
in its meeting dated 3-1-1994 were produced before us and the said resolution
provided that the settlement is to be made for a period of ranging from 5 to 10
years and it should be by way of tender only and that too, to the highest
bidder.”
51. The Hon'ble Full Bench has clearly laid down that so far as the Fisheries which
have been vested on the AFDC are concerned, such Fisheries cannot be settled by way
of direct settlement which power is only given to the Government for those Fisheries
which are not vested with the AFDC. Therefore, the only manner of making settlement
by the AFDC of the Fisheries vested with it, is to call for tenders by strictly following
the principles of fairness and transparency which are the hallmarks in matters of
distribution of State largesse.
52. In the instant case, what clearly transpires from the records is that the initial
settlements done by the AFDC with the petitioners were, apparently not preceded by
any procedure recognised by law. The concept of PPP, in settlement of Fisheries, is
alien to the Rules governing the field and settlement can be given only by means of a
tender process strictly in accordance with the Rules.
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has laid down that
Page No.# 52/57
transparency and fairness are the basic ingredients of a procedure for distribution of
State largesse. In the landmark case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International
Airport Authority of India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has laid down the following:
“11. ... The discretion of the Government has been held to be not unlimited in
that the Government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion
or at its sweet will. It is insisted, as pointed out by Prof. Reich in an especially
stimulating article on “The New Property” in 73 Yale Law Journal 733, “that
Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or
unauthorised”. The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs
or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having
grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular
religious faith. The Government is still the Government when it acts in the
matter of granting largesse and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does not stand in the
same position as a private individual.”
54. In the case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(1985) 3 SCC 267 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:
“18. The position that emerges is this. Undoubtedly Rule 28 permits contract for
winning mineral to be granted by the Government by auction or tender. It is
true that auction was held. It is equally true that according to the State
Government, the highest bid did not represent the market price of the
concession. It is open to the State to dispose of the contract by tender. Even
here the expression “tender” does not mean a private secret deal between the
Chief Minister and the offerer. Tender in the context in which the expression is
used in Rule 28, means “tenders to be invited from intending contractors”. If it
was intended by the use of the expression “tender” in Rule 28 that contract can
be disposed of by private negotiations with select individual, its validity will be
Page No.# 53/57
open to serious question. The language ordinarily used in such rules is by public
auction or private negotiations. The meaning of the expression “private
negotiations” must take its colour and prescribe its content by the words which
precede them. And at any rate disposal of the State property in public interest
must be by such method as would grant an opportunity to the public at large to
participate in it, the State reserving to itself the right to dispose it of as best
subserve the public weal. Viewed from this angle, the disposal of the contract
pursuant to the letter by the fourth respondent to the Chief Minister is
objectionable for more than one reason. The writer has indulged into
allegations, the truth of which was not verified or asserted. The highest bidder
whose bid was rejected on the ground that the bid did not represent the market
price, was not given an opportunity to raise his own bid when privately a higher
offer was received. If the allegations made in the letter influenced the decision
of the Chief Minister, fair-play in action demands that the appellant should have
been given an opportunity to counter and correct the same. Application of the
minimum principles of natural justice in such a situation must be read in the
statute and held to be obligatory. When it is said that even in administrative
action, the authority must act fairly, it ordinarily means in accordance with the
principles of natural justice variously described as fair play in action. That
having not been done, the grant in favour of the fourth respondent must be
quashed.”
55. The law on this field being crystal clear, as has been explained by the Full Bench
in the case of M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra), the
AFDC, through its Managing Director, could not have invented a new concept of PPP
and thereafter, attempt to settle the Fisheries, in question, to the exclusion of other
eligible bidders. In fact, such settlements would be wholly in gross violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
56. Having held that the initial orders of settlement with the petitioners are bad in
Page No.# 54/57
law, the question, which may arise, is that whether the cancellation of such settlement
would require adherence to the principles of natural justice in the form of giving
notice.
57. There is no manner of doubt that the principles of natural justice are ingrained
in the administrative system where fair play is a concomitant. The said principles are
also one of the essential ingredients of a robust judicial system. However, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court itself has laid down certain exceptions where such adherence would be
an useless formality. In the case of Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan,
reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:
“24. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must
also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State
Bank of India Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the
principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other
than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade’s
Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. 472-75), as follows:
“[I]t is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of
natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. … There
must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no
such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The
requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under
which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so
forth.”
Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in
several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view
Page No.# 55/57
have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma. In
that case, the principle of “prejudice” has been further elaborated. The same
principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.
25. The “useless formality” theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from
the class of cases of “admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one
conclusion” referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the
application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in
regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C.
Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various
judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord
Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views
expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H.
Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always
be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the issue. Some others
have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet,
some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this
case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on
the facts of a particular case.”
58. In the instant case, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is undoubtedly a Court of Equity where, the conduct of the
parties and the antecedents play a major role in the decision making process. As held
above, the initial orders of settlement are absolutely without any sanction of law as,
the Rules holding the field were given a total go-by. The then Managing Director of
the AFDC had mooted an alien concept of PPP in the case of settlement of fisheries.
Even assuming that the object of such attempt was bona fide, that itself, would not
confer legal sanctity to the process.
Page No.# 56/57
59. When the initial settlement is palpably illegal, no object would be achieved by
giving any opportunity to the petitioners, as there is no scope to justify the same. As
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University (supra)
as well as Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (supra), the same would only be a useless
formality and therefore, this Court holds that the cancellation of the settlement with
the petitioners is not liable to be interfered.
60. The petitioners have pleaded that pursuant to the initial settlements, they had
made huge investments for development of the Fisheries, in question, and for their
fishing activities. The said claims being disputed and otherwise constitute questions of
fact, a Writ Court cannot embark into such an arena involving disputed questions of
fact and the same can be resolved only by a competent Civil Court. The parties are,
accordingly at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for such relief, if permitted
by law.
61. This Court is also unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners that no law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of
M/s. Haria Dablong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra). The contents of the
said judgment, more particularly, those in paragraph 31, which have been quoted
above, clearly lays down the law and has rather, removed a confusion on the functions
and powers of the AFDC regarding settlement of fisheries in the State. Accordingly,
there is no application of the caveat regarding ratio decidendi laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Misra (supra).
62. It is a settled position of law that if a procedure is prescribed by law to do a
certain thing in a certain manner, there cannot be any deviation from such procedure.
In this connection, one may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Privy Council
in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)
Order downloaded on 24-12-2024 06:48:55 PMPage No.# 57/57
wherein, the following has been laid down:
“The rule which applies is a different and not less well recognized rule—
namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way
the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden.”
63. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the unhesitant
opinion that no case is able to be made out by the petitioners and accordingly, all the
writ petitions are dismissed.
64. No order as to cost.
65. Records produced by Shri Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC are returned
to him.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Legal Notes
Add a Note....