Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010216422025 2025:GAU-AS:14553 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No.: WP(C)/5057/2025 SIMANTA DAS SON OF LATE GUNIN DAS R/O VILL- HABIAL GAON P.O. GANAK PUKHURI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785622 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHASAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI-781036. 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CHASAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI-781036. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (D.C.) GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-785621 5:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DERGAON DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM For the petitioner (s) : Mr. B. Rahman, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. R. Chetry, SC, AFDC Mr. N. Borah, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Administration, Golaghat. Mr. R. Chetry, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the AFDC and Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent No.7. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the delay in completion of the settlement process Page No.# 3/4 by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in respect to the Gelasinga Meen Mahal and therefore sought for appropriate directions for culmination of the said settlement process by awarding the contract to the valid highest bidder. 3. Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent No.7 submitted that he is the second highest bidder, but the petitioner has no claim in respect to the said settlement in as much as the fisherman certificate so submitted by the petitioner was a forged document. 4. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submitted that an enquiry was also conducted, and in pursuance to the enquiry, it was found that the fisherman certificate submitted by the petitioner is not a genuine one. 5. Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, strenuously objects to the contention that the certificate of the petitioner is fake. 6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also taken into account as to why the petitioner has approached this Court. The grievance of the petitioner herein is delay in conclusion of the settlement proceedings. 7. This Court further takes note that delay in conclusion of the Page No.# 4/4 settlement proceedings affects the revenue which the Respondent Authorities otherwise would be earning. 8. Accordingly, taking into account the limited prayer made in the writ petition, this Court, without commenting on the legality or validity of the fisherman certificate of the petitioner, directs the Respondent Authorities to conclude the settlement proceedings in respect of Gelasinga Meen Mahal in accordance with law within a time frame. 9. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that the same would be done within 15 days. 10. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. It is observed that this Court had not decided on the aspect regarding the legality and validity of the fisherman certificate of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Settling Authority, the decision in the present writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner to challenge such decision in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant