AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Phukan, J.—This petition has been filed by a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the settlement of No. 15 Kaldia Fishery with Respondent No. 4 which is also a Co-operative Society.
According to the Petitioners the Co-operative Society has been formed by the actual fishermen belonging to the scheduled caste community and the Fishery in question is located within the neighbourhood of the said Society. It has been alleged that the Respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society is not composed of actual fishermen. The term of settlement of the present Fishery came to an end on 31.3.93 and accordingly the Petitioner society applied for direct settlement under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. The allegation of the writ Petitioner is that without receiving any report from the Deputy Commissioner and without considering the petition for settlement of the writ Petitioner the settlement was given in favour of Respondent No. 4. The settlement order dated 20th April, 1993 is at Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the Fishery was settled for a period of three years from 20.4 93 to 19.4.96.
On behalf of the State Government records have been produced. Respondent No. 4 has tiled affidavit-in-opposition. According to the Respondent No. 4 the Co-operative Society of the writ Petitioner is not within the neighbourhood of the Fishery in question and the members are residing 7 to 10 kilometres away. On the other hand, according to the Respondent No. 4 the members of the Co-operative Society are residing on the bank of the Fishery in question and all members belong to the scheduled caste community and fishing is their profession. The allegation that the members of the Respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society are not actual fishermen has been denied. This society was a sitting lessee. According to the Respondent No. 4 since 1976 the Co-operative Society of the writ Petitioners is not functioning and they were defaulters in respect of fishery revenue since 1973-75 which was paid in the year 1991 that is after 19 years. It has also been stated that the financial position of the Co-operative Society of the Petitioner is not good. It has been stated by the Respondent No. 4 that after taking possession of the Fishery an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been invested for the improvement of the Fishery as the breading period has already started.
Heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioners and Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Government Advocate.
The first contention of Mr. P.G. Baruah is that the application of the writ Petitioner for direct settlement was not considered. I have perused the file and I find that on 9.4.93 the Minister-in-charge after going through the advice tendered by the office recorded the reasoned order. From the said order I have found that there were as many as seven contenders for the Fishery in question including the Respondent No. 4. The Minister has recorded the reasons as to why in absence of report from the Deputy Commissioner the Fishery was settled with Respondent No. 4. Sitting as a writ court I can not go into the question whether the reason recorded by the Minister-in-charge was valid or not. The only point that needs consideration by this Court is whether the petition of the writ Petitioner for settlement was considered or not. As stated above his petition was considered along with the other petitions. Therefore the above order was validly and legally passed. The Minister also has recorded that the members of the Respondent No. 4 Society are actual fishermen belonging to scheduled caste community and the Society is not a defaulter. The Minister also has noted that the Respondent No. 4 Society has no other Fishery.
Regarding the allegation that the members of the Respondent No. 4 Society are not actual fishermen I find from the report of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society annexed as Annexure-A to the counter that the Society is composed of 100% actual fishermen belonging to scheduled caste namasudra community. Therefore, the allegation of the writ Petitioner is not tenable. The Assistant Registrar found that the Respondent No. 4 Society was financially sound and the annual revenue for the last five years have been quoted in the said report. The Assistant Registrar also has recommended that the Fishery in question may be settled with the Respondent No. 4.
From what has been stated above I hold that the settlement order in respect of the Fishery in question in favour of the Respondent No. 4 was legally and validly passed and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.