Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010120552025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3094/2025 M/S OUGURI KATAHGURI BHURBANDHA MATCHYAJIBI SAMABAI SAMITI LTD AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI DHIREN DAS, VILL.- OUGURI, P.O. BHURBANDHA, P.S. AND DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 786612 2: DHIREN DAS R/O- VILL.- OUGURI PIN- 782105 DIST. MORIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, ASSAM- 781006 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR ASSAM-781006 3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON PIN- 782105 ASSAM 4:THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MORIGAON PIN-782105 Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM 6:M/S 165/166/167/168 PURONA SONAI/SOLA/ GARANGA/SUKRAJ MEEN SAMABAI SAMITI LTD. VILL.- SUKDOI BORBORI P.O.- SUKDOL SORUBORI P.S. MIKIRBHETA DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM- 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MRIDUNIL M KASHYAP,MR. M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FISHERY, MISS. R R KAKATI (FOR CAVEATOR),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (FOR CAVEATOR) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 04.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sharma, who submits that the petitioner no.1 Society, comprising of 100% actual fishermen, is aggrieved by the issuance of the order of settlement order dated 28.05.2025 issued by the respondent no.2, settling No.165/166/167/168 Purona Sonai/Sola/Gauranga/Sukraj Meen Mahal Group Fishery with the respondent no.6 Society. 2. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no.6 Society does not comprise of 100% actual fishermen, inasmuch as, the following persons are not actual fishermen, i.e. those listed at Sl. No.1, 9, 24, 38, 49, 52, 53, 58 and 71 of the list of members of the respondent no.6 Society (Annexure-E). The petitioners’ counsel thus submits that the settlement order dated 28.05.2025 should be set aside and possession of the fishery should not be given to the respondent no.6 Society. Page No.# 3/4 3. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.6 Society assisted by Ms. R.R. Kakati, on the other hand, submits that the respondent no.6 Society comprises of 100% actual fishermen and in this regard, he has submitted Certificate No. CMT.2/2013/Pt/77 dated 04.12.2024, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ARCS), Morigaon, which states that as per the Certificate issued by the local Gaon Pradhan, all the members of the respondent no.6 Society are 100% actual fishermen by Scheduled Caste and profession. He also submits that the settlement order issued in favour of the respondent no.6 Society has also taken note of the ARCS’s Certificate dated 04.12.2024. 4. Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the Fishery Department submits that the question as to whether a Society comprises of 100% actual fishermen, is to be decided by the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and as the respondent no.6 Society had submitted a Certificate issued by the competent authority, stating that it comprised of 100% actual fishermen, there was no infirmity in settling the fishery with the respondent no.6 Society. 5. Ms. S.T. Bakt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 & 5 submits that the question as to whether a Society comprises of 100% fishermen, is to be decided by the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and as per the Certificate issued to the respondent no.6 Society, the respondent no.6 Society comprised of 100% fishermen. 6. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue that is to be decided, is an issue to be decided on facts. As the competent authority to decide the said issue is the respondent no.5, who had issued the Certificate dated 04.12.2024, this Court Page No.# 4/4 directs the respondent no.5 to re-verify whether Sl. No.1, 9, 24, 38, 49, 52, 53, 58 and 71 in the list of the members of the respondent no.6 Society (Annexure- E), are actual fishermen. In the event the respondent no.5 comes to a finding that some of the members of the respondent no.6 Society are not actual fishermen, he shall submit his report to that effect to the respondent no.2, who shall thereafter take a decision with regard to whether the settlement order should remain or be cancelled, pursuant to the finding made by the respondent no.5. 7. The respondent no.5 shall also give an opportunity of hearing to the Sl. No.1, 9, 24, 38, 49, 52, 53, 58 and 71 of the list of members of the respondent no.6 Society, prior to taking a decision as to whether they are actual fishermen. 8. The entire exercise process should be completed within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and is not interfering with the settlement order issued in favour of the respondent no.6 Society. It is further directed that Rule 23-A of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 should be followed in all the fisheries in the State of Assam. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant