Page No. 1/5 GAHC010031312026 2026:GAU-AS:2492 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/869/2026 SRI GOPAL SARKAR SON OF LATE KHUSHI MOHAN SARKAR, RESIDENT OF CHALANTAPARA PART-I, P.O.- CHALANTAPARA, DISTRICT ASSAM VERSUS THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND 3 ORS. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHACHAL, VIP ROAD, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUPM, ASSAM, PIN-781036, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD SITUATED AT CHACHAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781036. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DISTRICT-BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOITAMARI REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT-BONGAIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHOUDHURY, MS. A KHARBANI,MR T CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC, GA, ASSAM Page No. 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 18.02.2026 Heard Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fishery Development Corporation Limited for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. In view of the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, this writ petition is taken up for final consideration, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, by making the notice returnable forthwith. 3. The case projected by the writ petitioner can be narrated as follows :- Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 25.05.2018 issued by the respondent Assam Fisheries Development Corporation [AFDC] Limited vide NIT No.01/2018, the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of a fishery named Doloni Fishery [‘the Fishery’, for short] located in Bongaigaon District for a period of seven years and in the tender process, the petitioner emerged as the highest valid bidder. However, vide an Order dated 16.02.2019, the Fishery was settled with the petitioner for a period of six years only instead of seven years with the condition that the extension of the settlement for the 7th year would be considered at a later stage. Accordingly, in the year 2019, the possession of the Fishery was handed over to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner came to know that about 25% area of the Fishery was under illegal encroachment. Immediately after coming to know about such illegal encroachment, the petitioner time and again requested the respondent authorities to clear the Fishery from the encroachers. The respondent AFDC Ltd. had, in turn, also made several requests to the District Administration of Bongaigaon to clear the Fishery from the encroachers. 3.1. Thereafter, vide an Order dated 26.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 2, the Page No. 3/5 settlement of the Fishery was extended for the 7th year till 31.03.2026 considering the fact that the original NIT for settlement was issued for seven years. In order to obtain such extension, the petitioner had to approach the Court by filling a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1728/2025. The Fishery was cleared from encroachment only in January, 2026 and w.e.f. 2019 till January, 2026, the petitioner could not operate the entire Fishery because of such encroachment. 3.2. The NIT dated 25.05.2018 in respect of the Fishery was issued with the projection that the total area of the Fishery comprised of 867 Hectares [Land] and 300 Hectares [Water]. The petitioner has contended that he participated in the said NIT with an expectation that he could utilize the entire area of the Fishery but a huge portion of the Fishery covering about 25% area was under encroachment, which was cleared only in January, 2026. That apart, during 2020 and 2021, the petitioner also suffered huge loss in running the Fishery due to Covid 19 pandemic and for imposition of various restrictions by the Government. 3.3. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed a Representation dated 09.02.2026 before the respondent no. 2 seeking extension of his settlement period. In the meantime, on 03.02.2026, the respondent No. 2 has already issued one NIT for settlement of the Fishery and the petitioner has been verbally informed that the prayer of the petitioner seeking extension of settlement would not be considered. With the apprehension that the settlement period of the Fishery will not be extended, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite repeated representations as regards the truncated area of the Fishery right from the first year of settlement, the AFDC Limited authorities did not either undertake any discernible serious effort and step to make the entire area of the Fishery free from encroachment or decide on any proportionate reduction in the annual settlement amount according to the area under possession of the petitioner. It is in such fact situation, the petitioner has to approach this Court to urge for a fair consideration of the Representation submitted by him on 09.02.2026 seeking extension of the settlement period of the Fishery. Page No. 4/5 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma has submitted that if the Representation dated 09.02.2026 has not yet been considered, the same can be considered as expeditiously as possible. 6. Having regard to the nature of dispute raised, this Court is of the considered view, without making any observation as regards the respective merits of the claim of the petitioner and the respondent AFDC Ltd. authorities, that the Representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 should receive a fair consideration in view of the background facts regarding non-handing over of the entire area of the Fishery, as mentioned in the Tender Notice no. 01/2018, to the petitioner during the settlement period on and from the date of the Settlement Order dated 16.02.2019. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner may be provided with another opportunity to file a detail Representation along with all the supporting documents in support of his claim. The submission is found reasonable and accordingly, the petitioner is allowed 3 [three] working days time to file a detail Representation along with all the supporting documents in support of his claim for extension of the Fishery or a decision regarding proportional reduction of the annual settlement amount for the settlement period. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take the Representation dated 09.02.2026 and the Representation, if filed by the petitioner within the permitted period, on board. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 shall dispose of the Representation[s] by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible. The speaking order shall be communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter. It is further observed that the tender process initiated by the Tender Notice no. 01/2026 dated 03.02.2026 for settlement of the Fishery shall not be finalised till the passing of the speaking order and the matter of settlement of the Fishery pursuant to the Tender Notice no. 01/2018 shall abide by the decision taken in the speaking order. 9. If the petitioner intends to participate in the tender process initiated for the settlement Page No. 5/5 of the Fishery vide Tender Notice no. 01/2026, without prejudice to his claim made in the Representation[s], the petitioner can do so by submitting his bid on or before the last date of bid submission already fixed by the Tender Notice dated 03.02.2026. 10. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant