Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010140502025 2025:GAU-AS:8567 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3670/2025 MAJNU AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL HEKIM, R/O- VILL.- BATAMARI, P.O. BALIKOTIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782122. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE NAGAON ZILLA PARISHAD NAGAON REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) OF NAGAON ZILLA PARISHAD DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE JURIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER P.O. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER JURIA ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT P.O. JURIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 6:THE BALIKOTIA GAON PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.O. BALIKOTIA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 7:THE SECRETARY OF BALIKOTIA GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BALIKOTIA DIST. NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. B RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 25-06-2025 Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the Juria Anchalik Panchayat, vide order dated 26.09.2023, had settled/leased out Goria Kawaimari beel with the petitioner for Rs.81,000/- for a period from 2023-2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026, i.e., upto 30.06.2026. The petitioner thereafter deposited the entire kist money and has been operating the fishery for the last two years. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that despite the settlement period of the fishery not having expired, the Balikotia Gaon Panchayat has invited tenders for settlement of the Goria Kawaimari beel, vide the impugned NIT dated 05.06.2025. He submits that as the settlement period upto 30.06.2026 has not expired, the impugned NIT dated 05.06.2026 should be set aside. Besides, the Balikotia Gaon Panchayat could not have issued an NIT for settlement of the fishery, as the same had been settled with the petitioner by the Juria Anchalik Page No.# 3/4 Panchayat. 3. Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the P&RD Department submits that the settlement of the fishery with the petitioner is in violation of Section 109 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). He also submits that the settlement of the fishery has not been done pursuant to any NIT and the same has apparently been done beyond the period of one Panchayat year, which is in violation of the Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. A perusal of the settlement order dated 26.09.2023 shows that the Juria Anchalik Panchayat had accepted the petitioner’s application for settlement of the fishery. To a query put to the counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the settlement has been done on the basis of any NIT, the petitioner’s counsel has not been able to show that the settlement has been done on the basis of any NIT. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was a tenderer in respect of any NIT for which he was settled with the said fishery. 6. Section 109 of the Act provides that a fishery can be settled for a period not exceeding one Panchayat financial year and that too by inviting tender. In the present case, no NIT has been issued prior to the settlement of the fishery with the petitioner. Also, the settlement of the fishery has been done beyond the prescribed period of the Act. In view of the above reasons, the settlement of the Goria Kawaimari beel with the petitioner for a period of 3 (three) years is accordingly set aside. The respondents should ensure that the petitioner is not allowed to operate the fishery with immediate effect, as the same is in violation Page No.# 4/4 with the Act. 7. In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant