Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010012812026 2026:GAU-AS:1943 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/675/2026 SRI NABA KUMAR DAS SON OF SRI HAREN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL- BHEBELI KOIBARTA, P.O.- NA-NADI, P.S. GOGAMUKH, DISTRICT- DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN- 787034 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESNETED BY COMMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V.I.P. ROAD CHACHAL GUWAHATI- 36 3:DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 5:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (FISHERY) DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 78705 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. A BORUA,MR T GOGOI,D.N. Page No.# 2/5 DASS,MS A DAS,MS. P BHATTACHARYA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, AFDC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department and AFDC Ltd. for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. 2. Responding to a Tender Notice dated 14.03.2022 whereby bids were invited for settlement of a fishery named Kumatia Group Fishery, Dhemaji [‘the Fishery’, for short] for a period of seven years, the petitioner submitted his bid and upon evaluation, he emerged as the highest valid bidder for settlement. By an Order dated 05.07.2022 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 2, the Fishery has been settled in favour of the petitioner for a period of seven years from the Financial Year : 2022-2023 to the Financial Year : 2028-2029, that is, up to 31.03.2029. On being settled with the Fishery, the petitioner took its possession. 3. The case canvassed by the petitioner is that in the Tender Notice dated 14.03.2022, the AFDC Ltd. had projected that the Fishery had an area of 68 hectares. Accepting such projection as correct, the petitioner had prepared the bid value accordingly in anticipation that the petitioner would be able to do Page No.# 3/5 fishing in an area of 68 hectares of the Fishery. The petitioner was under the assumption that the Fishery had 68 hectares of area as projected, for the reason that when the petitioner was handed over the possession during rainy season it was not possible to measure the total area of the Fishery. After the area of the Fishery dried up, the petitioner had found that some area of the Fishery got shrunk due to sandy water forces of flood and human encroachment. The petitioner has projected that as a result, the operational area of the Fishery has been made restricted to only 40 hectares approx. and as a result, the fishing activities have also restricted resulting in lesser production and consequently, lesser revenue. Though the petitioner has been regularly paying annual settlement amount to the respondent authority, the petitioner has faced sever crisis to raise the annual settlement revenue for payment to the settling authority. 4. The petitioner brought the matter of lesser operational area of the Fishery to the notice of the respondent authorities. On the basis of his representations, a spot verification was done on 21.12.2024 by the jurisdictional Circle Officer and after verification, a report was submitted to the respondent no. 2 on 15.02.2025. The petitioner has stated that he has submitted two representations before the respondent no. 2 on 27.02.2025 and 04.08.2025 with a prayer for re-fixation of the yearly revenue in respect of the Fishery upon consideration of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Circle Officer as regards the actual area available to operate the Fishery. As the Representations are not given consideration till date, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department and AFDC Ltd. Page No.# 4/5 appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 has submitted that though he has no instruction as to whether the Representations submitted by the petitioner have been given consideration till date, he has submitted that if it has been found after spot verification by the jurisdictional Circle Officer that the area of the Fishery is lesser than 68 hectares, the same might be relevant factor. He has submitted that at this stage, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take the Representations submitted by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 and 04.08.2025 on board and thereafter, to consider the same on merits along with the report submitted by the jurisdictional Circle Officer on 15.02.2025 [Annexure-7] after spot verification. If already the Representations have been considered and disposed of, then the decision passed thereon will be communicated to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel has agreed to the submission made by Mr. Sarma. He has further summited that the respondent no. 2 while giving consideration to the Representations shall also afford personal hearing to the petitioner. 7. In the tender notice, it was projected that the Fishery had an area of 68 hectares. The report of the jurisdictional Circle officer reported that a part of the Fishery is completely dried up and silted due to seasonal flood of Kumutia river and there is shrinkage due to sandy watercourses of flood and human encroachment. As the petitioner has contended that he submitted the bid value by taking into consideration the Fishery had an actual area of 68 hectares for fishing, the matter of re-fixation of the yearly revenue has to be given consideration by the respondent no. 2. 8. In above view of the matter, the Court is of the considered view that the Page No.# 5/5 issue raised by the petitioner calls for factual determination and therefore, it is for the respondent no. 2 to take the two Representations submitted by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 and 04.08.2025 on board and to give consideration to them after taking into account the report submitted by the jurisdictional Circle Officer and affording personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Representations should be disposed of by a speaking order on the matter of re- fixation of the yearly revenue of the Fishery, on merit and as per the extant procedure. It is accordingly ordered. It is further observed that the speaking order should be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2. 9. This order disposes of the writ petition. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant