Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010137442024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3512/2024 THE BRAHMAPUTRA PART III MACH MAHAL SAMABAI SAMITTEE LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SRI PADMADHAR DAS, VILL- BHITORKOKILA, P.O.-NEAMATIGHAT, DIST-JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 KAMRUP ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-785001 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAJULI ASSAM, PIN-785110 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TEOK REVENUE CIRCLE DIST-JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785112 8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KAMALABARI REVENUE CIRCLE MAJULI ASSAM, PIN-785110 9:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GARMUR JORHAT, ASSAM PIN-785001 10:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GARAMUR MAJULI ASSAM, PIN-78510 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P PATHAK, MS. S T BOKTH,MR. A NARZARI,MRS. P BARMAN (BORKAKOTI) Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FISHERY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 26.08.2026 An order dated 11.06.2024 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fisheries Department to initiate tender process for settlement of the Brahmaputra Part III Mach Mahal Samabai Samittee Ltd. is the subject matter of challenge. Page No.# 3/4 2. As per the facts which are revealed from the materials on record, the petitioner was settled with the fishery for a period of 7 years for the period from 2008-2015. It is however projected that the fishery could not be operated on certain difficulties which is also reflected in certain orders of the Department. The Department however vide an order dated 17.06.2022 had allowed the petitioner to run the fishery for another 2 years from the date of expiry of the extended period which was on 30.10.2022 at the rate of 25% above the revenue. It may however be mentioned that the initial period of the fishery had expired in the year 2015 itself. 3. Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the extension order was for 2 years, it was stated that such extension would be from the date of handing over a possession. It is contended that so far as the portions of the fishery is concerned, the Teok portion was handed over on 26.12.2023, the Jorhat West portion was handed over on 10.01.2024, the Kamalabari portion was handed over on 22.02.2024 and the Ujoni Majuli portion was handed over on 22.10.2024. 4. The learned counsel has contended that at least till expiry of 2 years from the date when Ujoni Majuli area has been handed over, the impugned order of 11.06.2024 could not have been issued. 5. On the other hand, Shri P. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Fisheries Department has submitted that the original period of settlement was long over and under one pretext or the other, the extension has been granted which had also expired in terms of the last extension order. He accordingly has defended the order dated 11.06.2024. 6. It is a matter of shock and surprise that a settlement which was for 7 years and expired in the year 2015 has been continued for an extra decade. Though the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner may have some bona fide reasons for not being able to run the fishery, the appropriate course would be to examine the matter and make refund, if permitted in accordance with law. The same cannot be a ground to keep on extending the period for a term which is almost double the term of the initial settlement. 7. So far as the arguments advanced that one part of the fishery namely, Ujoni Majuli has been handed over only on 22.10.2024 and 2 years period is yet to expire, this Court is unable to accept such submission inasmuch as 3 other parts have been handed over on prior dates as mentioned above and more than 2 years have passed and the petitioner continues to run the fishery. Further, the said argument runs counter to the established principle that an extension can be given only during the currency of the lease. It clearly appears that the extension itself was not in accordance with law. 8. The conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court by invoking the equitable jurisdiction itself appears to be doubtful. The present attempt clearly appears to be a move to delay and defeat the tender process which has sought to be initiated by the order dated 11.06.2024. In fact this petition is itself pending since the year 2024 and there is an interim order operating. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. The interim order stands vacated. 11. Based on the facts and circumstances, this Court also imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) upon the petitioner to be paid in favour of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. JUDGE Comparing Assistant