Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010133312025 2025:GAU-AS:8422 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3552/2025 DIBRU DANGRI RIVER PART -I MIN SAMABAY SAMITY LTD DIGHAL TARANG, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI BIKASH DAS, 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SACHINDRA DAS R/O DIGHAL TARANG P.O. DIGHAL TARANG P.S. BAGHJAN DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/4 TINSUKIA ASSAM. 5:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SADIYA CHAPAKHOWA. 6:THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HOUSEFED COMPLEX GUWAHATI-781029. 7:THE ASSTT. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TINSUKIA. 8:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C) SADIYA SUB-DIVISION TINSUKIA. 9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SADIYA REVENUE CIRCLE CHAPAKHOWA TINSUKIA ASSAM 10:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TINSUKIA. 11:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER TINSUKIA WILD LIFE DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, MR D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FOREST,SC, FISHERY Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 24.06.2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner has been settled with the Brahmaputra Part-I and Dibang Nadi Fishery for a period of 7 years, which is to end on 30.12.2026. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner has not been able to utilize the selling points, which had been identified by the Fishery Department for selling his fish, which had been caught from the fishery that had been settled with the petitioner, w.e.f. February, 2024. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the petitioner had made various representations to the authorities to identify a selling point for the fish caught in the fishery settled with him, the respondents have not done the same till date. On the other hand, the respondents have issued a letter dated 16.05.2025 to the petitioner, asking the petitioner to pay the kist money (revenue) amounting to Rs.5,84,435/-. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondents should be directed to recall the impugned letter dated 16.05.2025 or in the alternative, the same should be set aside, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been able to sell his fish due to the selling points not being identified by the Fishery Department. 5. Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the Fishery Department submits that the respondents have not submitted any representation with regard to their grievance against the impugned letter dated 16.05.2025 till date. He further submits that the issues raised by the petitioner all pertain to factual issues, which can be decided by the authorities. Page No.# 4/4 6. On considering the fact that the petitioner has not submitted any representation to the authorities, with regard to his grievance regarding the impugned letter dated 16.05.2025 issued by the Co-District Commissioner, Sadiya, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first approach the concerned authorities with his grievance. Further, the issues raised by the petitioner all pertain to factual disputes, which in the view of this Court, can best be redressed by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, there being an efficacious alternative remedy available, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition should not be kept pending any longer. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities with it’s grievance, by submitting a representation against the same, if so advised. In the event the petitioner submits a representation, the same should be decided by the respondents, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant