Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010067872025 2025:GAU-AS:9693 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1887/2025 FOYZUL HOQUE S/O- LATE MD. MAKOODAS ALI, R/O- VILL- SALCHAPRA, .PO.- SALCHAPRA, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN- 781036. 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN- 781036 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR A K DAS,MS J AKTAR Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 25.07.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fishery Development Corporation (AFDC), representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner, in the present proceeding is with regard to an order dated 12.03.2025, issued by the Managing Director, Assam Fishery Development Corporation, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for remission of the Kisht amount submitted by him for operation of Baraknadi Anua Beel in the district of Cachar. 3. The petitioner herein, in pursuance to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 04.02.2016 for lease of No. 66 Baraknadi Anua Beel, located in the district of Cachar for a period of 7 years i.e. w.e.f. 2017-18 to 2022-23 had submitted his bids, complete in all respects. The bids of the petitioner, on being scrutinized being found to be suitable and he also becoming the highest bidder, the Beel in question was settled with him on 25.10.2017 for a period of 6 years w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2023 at his bid amount. The petitioner, thereafter, made the requisite deposits of the amount prescribed. The petitioner having made the payments as required, an agreement was executed by and between the authorities of AFDC on 01.11.2017. 4. It is projected in the writ petition that on account of pending proceedings before this Court, the said Beel was formally handed over to the petitioner only on 01.11.2017. The petitioner while operating the said Beel, having faced losses on account of natural calamities as well as on the ground that he was required to deposit his Kisht money w.e.f. 01.04.2016 while in reality; the operation of the Beel by him had started only w.e.f. Page No.# 3/6 01.11.2017, when it was formally handed over to him, approached the respondent authorities by way of filing a representation praying for remission of the Kisht amount in tune with the loss actually suffered by him. The representation submitted by the petitioner not having been considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2902/2023. 5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.10.2024, by noticing the issues arising in the matter was pleased to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the representation dated 06.06.2023, submitted by the petitioner in the matter. Thereafter, in pursuance to the directions passed vide order dated 28.10.2024, the Managing Director of AFDC vide order dated 12.03.2025, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner by holding that the remission claimed by him is not permissible to be approved in terms of Clause-23 of the agreement executed by the petitioner with the authorities of the AFDC. The order dated 12.03.2025, being relevant is extracted herein below: - ORDER Sri Foyjul Hoque, Ex, lessee of Baraknadi Anua Beel has submitted a prayer on 06.06.2023 for Release/ repay of an amount of Rs 46,79,000.00 against yearly revenue of the said beel for the financial year 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23, releasing of fish fingerlings in Baraknadi Anua Beel, Dist- Cachar. In his submitted application he stated that an amount of Rs 46,79,000.00 as loss incurred by him/claim amount for management of the said beel fishery during his settlement period and requesting the office for release/repay of aforesaid amount. After going through the records it has been noticed that the as per the clause no 23 of agreement executed with him stated that no remission of revenue will be applicable for loss incurred by lessee for settlement of beel fishery during his management period. As such in compliance of the court case no. WP(C) 2902/2023 order dated 28.10.2024 his application submitted on 06.06.2023 is hereby rejected and disposed of. Page No.# 4/6 Managing Director Assam Fisheries Devt. Corpn. Ltd Guwahati-36 Memo No. AFDC/35/2016/4022-4027 Date: 12.3.2025 6. A perusal of the order dated 12.03.2025; reveals that the Managing Director, AFDC, had rejected the claim of the petitioner for revision by invoking the provisions of Clause- 23 of the agreement executed by him with the AFDC authorities. The provisions of Clause- 23 of the agreement, mandates that no remission would be permissible for any loss incurred by the lessee of the Beel in question, during the same was under his management. The provisions of Clause-23 of the agreement, being relevant, is extracted herein below for ready reference: - ২৩। দদ্বিততীয় পক্ষই ববানপবানতী, খৰবাৰ, মবাছৰ ববমবাৰ, বলপপূবর্বকভবাবব অনন্যবলবাবক মবাছ মৰবা, দবষকক্রিয়বা, চচ দৰ বহবাৱবা, মতীনমহলৰ ববদখল, দখল চমকজ বনবাবপবাৱবা নতচববা অনন্যবানন্য পবাকক দতক দদবৰর্ববাগৰ ববাবব হ'ব পৰবা বলবাকচবানৰ ববাবব পথম পক্ষক দবায়বদ কদৰব বনবাৱবাদৰব আৰ এবন ঘটনবা-আদদৰ পৰবা দদ্বিততীয় পক্ষ বলবাকচবানৰ ভবাগতী হ'বলও এবনবববাৰ অজদহবাতত মতীনমহলৰ ৰবাজহ বৰহবাই নবাপবাব। 7. On perusal of the Clause-23 of the agreement, it is seen that the same mandates that in the event, the 2nd party i.e. the petitioner herein, suffers any loss on account of floods, disease to the fishes, forceful fishing by others or, theft of fishes, dispossession from the Beel and/or delay in taking possession of the Beel and/or any other reason of natural disaster, the 1st party i.e., the authorities of the AFDC would not be liable for the same and no remission would be permissible to be so granted. 8. In the present case, the claim made by the petitioner can be sub-divided into two parts. The first part would pertain to the claim for remission by the petitioner of the Kisht money paid by him w.e.f. 01.04.2017 till 31.10.2017, on the ground that the petitioner during the said period was not in a position to operate the Beel in question, inasmuch as, the same was formally handed over to him only on w.e.f. 01.11.2017. The second part of the claim would pertain to the loss sustained by the petitioner on account of natural Page No.# 5/6 disaster and/or any other causes after he was formally handed over the said Beel w.e.f. 01.11.2017 onwards. 9. With regard to the first part of the claim of the petitioner for remission, i.e., the remission of the Kisht money paid by him w.e.f. 01.04.2017 till 31.10.2017, it is to be noticed that the petitioner admittedly was not handed over possession of the said Beel during the said period, and such handing over had occasioned only w.e.f. 01.11.2017. As no material has been brought on record by the respondent authorities to demonstrate that the delay occasioning in taking possession of the Beel in question was on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2017 till 31.10.2017, would be entitled to remission of the Kisht money paid by him, for the Beel in question for the said period. However, with regard to the claim made by the petitioner for remission of Kisht money on account of losses suffered by him after he had started his operations in the said Beel, after the same was so formally handed over to him w.e.f., 01.11.2017 on account of natural disasters/causes, this Court is of the considered view that the said claim for remission for a period after 01.11.2017 would not be maintainable in view of the unambiguous provisions of Clause-23, which bars such claim for remission. 10. In view of the above conclusions reached, this Court hereby directs that respondent no. 2 & 3, to process the matter and to release to the petitioner the Kisht money deposited by him for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2017 till 31.10.2017. However, the claim of the petitioner for remission of the Kisht amount for losses sustained by him during operation of the Beel after 01.11.2017 would not mandate any consideration by the respondent authorities and the claim so made by the petitioner stands rejected. 11. The respondent authorities, while processing the matter for release of the Kisht amount furnished by the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.10.2017, before release of the said amount, shall also ascertain as to whether any dues is receivable by the AFDC from the petitioner. In the event, any dues is receivable by the authorities from the petitioner, the same shall be deducted from the Kisht money now required to be released Page No.# 6/6 to the petitioner and the balance thereof be released to the petitioner. 12. The exercise now required to be carried out by the authorities of the AFDC shall be so initiated and concluded with the release of the due amount to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant