JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking refund of the call deposit of Rs.5,000/- paid with tender and two installments @ Rs.3,250/- deposited on 21.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 and also to quash the notice dated 23.12.2024. 3. This Court duly takes note of that this is the second round of litigation. On an earlier round of litigation filed by the Petitioner seeking the similar reliefs, this Court had disposed of the said writ petition being WP(C) No.1626/2024 vide an order dated 25.10.2024 and directed the Respondents to duly consider the same. 4. In pursuance thereto, a hearing was conducted on 07.12.2024 and pursuant thereto, the order was passed on 23.12.2024 wherein it is mentioned that the Petitioner had deposited Rs.4,900/- and Rs.3,250/- for the 17 No. Jamuna Meen Mahal and the term of the fishery expired on 31.10.2024. Apart from that, the Additional District Commissioner, Hojai had directed the Petitioner to deposit a further amount as arrear installment within 10 days without specifying as to what is the arrear amount. The Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court. 5. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 29.01.2025 issued notice and stayed the order dated 23.12.2024. 6. Today, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has placed before this Court a set of instructions which are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 7. From a perusal of the said instructions, it appears that the 17 No. Jamuna Meen Mahal was settled with the Petitioner without any extension and as such, the Petitioner was liable to pay certain amounts. 8. This Court enquired with the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Respondents that if there was no extension granted to the Petitioner, how the question of payment of any arrear arises. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate with all his fairness submitted that without any grant of extension, the question of post facto seeking payment of any amount would not arise. 9. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate with all his fairness submitted that without any grant of extension, the question of post facto seeking payment of any amount would not arise. 9. Considering the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 insofar as demanding the Petitioner to pay certain arrears is required to be interfered with. 10. This Court however is also of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount as have been claimed in the instant writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Petitioner herein is not entitled to the refund of the amount of the call deposit of Rs.5,000/- paid with the tender and two installments @ Rs.3,250/- deposited on 21.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 as have been claimed in the writ petition. (ii) This Court sets aside the order dated 23.12.2024 only to the extent whereby there is a demand being made for payment of certain arrears. (iii) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.