Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010113552018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3503/2018 DIJEN DAS S/O LT. BIRESWAR DAS R/O VILL- SUKANPUKHURI, P.O. MOHANGHAT, P.S. BORBARUAH DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING, VIP ROAD, CHACHAL, GUWAHATI-36. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36. 3:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001. 4:THE INCHARGE MER-LOGONA -KHONA FISHERY DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN - 786001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MR. A K GUPTA Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC, MR. S B SARMA Linked Case : WP(C)/3594/2018 DIJEN DAS S/O LT. BIRESWAR DAS R/O VILL- SUKANPUKHURI P.O. MOHANGHAT P.S. BORBARUAH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI-36. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI -36. 3:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN - 786001. 4:THE INCHARGE MER-LOGONA-KHONA FISHERY DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN - 786001. ------------ Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for : MR. P J SAIKIA Advocate for : SC AFDC appearing for THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC appearing for the respondents. 2. These two writ petitions hinge on common questions of law and facts and therefore, are being taken up for disposal by this common order. 3. Pursuant to the NIT dated 11.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 inviting bids for settlement of “Mer-Logona-Khona Fishery/beel” for a period of 7 years, the writ petitioner had submitted his bid whereafter, the fishery was settled with him for a period of 7 years i.e. with effect from 2017-2018 to 2023- 2024 at the annual revenue of Rs.12,00,064/-. Thus, the total revenue payable by the petitioner for the period of 7 years was Rs.84,00,448/-. The petitioner’s case is that due to pendency of Court cases there was delay, not only in execution of the settlement agreement which could finally be done only on 27.10.2017 but even the handing over of possession of the fishery got delayed. Even after he took possession of the fishery, the same could not be operated to its potential due to encroachment and other operational reasons beyond his control. The claim of the petitioner is that in the 1st year, out of the 12 months, the petitioner could operate the fishery only for a period of 5 months. Since the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner could not operate the fishery as per the terms of settlement, hence, he defaulted in payment of revenue as a result of which, by the order dated 28.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 the settlement of the fishery was cancelled and the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,67,090/- (without fine). 3. Due to the delay in handing over possession of the fishery, the petitioner had submitted two representations, one dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure-E to WP(C) No.3503/2018) and another dated 09.04.2018 (Anneure-E1) making a request for refixation of the revenue of the fishery. Since the prayer made by the petitioner was not considered, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.3503/2018 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refix the revenue of the fishery by considering the representations. 4. During the pendency of WP(C) No.3503/2018 the order of cancellation order of settlement dated 28.05.2018 was issued. Aggrieved thereby, WP(C) No.3594/2018 was instituted by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his client is not pursuing the challenge made to the order dated 28.05.2018 by means of which, the settlement of the fishery was cancelled. His only grievance at this stage is pertaining to the failure on the part of the respondent to consider his representations for refixation/re-adjustment of revenue due to the delay in handing over possession of the fishery. 6. Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC has submitted, in his usual fairness, that since the petitioner had submitted representation, the same Page No.# 5/5 deserves consideration by the authorities. He, however, submits that as per the materials on record, it appears that no such consideration of the petitioner’s representation has been made till today. As such, Mr. Sarma has submitted that if a direction is issued by this Court, the grievance of the petitioner will be looked into and appropriate steps, as may be permissible in law, would be taken in the matter. 7. In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for both the sides, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim made by the petitioner, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by granting four weeks time from today to the writ petitioner to submit a fresh representation, by enclosing a copy of this order, ventilating his grievance in the matter. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 i.e. the Managing Director of the AFDC, the same be looked into and be disposed of by a speaking order. Any further action in the matter proposed by the authorities, if so advised, be initiated only after the representation submitted by the petitioner is considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 8. The writ petitions stand closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant