Gauhati High Court
Uttam Kumar Das vs The Assam Fisheries Dev Elopment ... on 3 August, 2021
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010113542021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3509/2021
UTTAM KUMAR DAS
S/O LATE BHUBEN DAS, R/O VILL. KACHUTOLA, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST.
BONGAIGAON, PIN 783371, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM FISHERIES DEV ELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, VIP ROAD, SIX MILE, CHACHAL,
BORBARI, GUWAHATI 781036, ASSAM.
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIP ROAD
SIX MILE
CHACHAL
BORBARI
GUWAHATI 781036
ASSAM.
3:THE PROJECT MANAGER
ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
LOWER ASSAM ZONAL OFFICE
ABHAYAPURI
BONGAIGAON
ASSAM.
4:BANKIM MALO
S/O BHOLANATH MALO
R/O VILL. CHALANTAPARA
PT-I
Page No.# 2/4
P.O. CHALANTAPARA
P.S. JOGIGHOPAH
DIST. BONGAIGAON
PIN 78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
ORDER
03.08.2021 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AFDC.
The petitioner was settled with the Tamranga Konora Group Fisheries, Bongaigaon vide letter dated 11.05.2020 and subsequent thereto possession was delivered on 23.07.2020. The said settlement was governed by an agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent, Managing Director, AFDC. As submitted by Mr. Choudhury in terms of the settlement, the total kist money for the year 2020-2021 comes to Rs.85,85,885/- out of that, a sum of Rs. 39,46,742/- was paid. Considering the other deduction for non delivery of possession/ obstruction alleged by the writ petitioner, the total balance comes to Rs. 9,93,078/-. On the face of the said outstanding, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that vide letter dated 18.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 48,87,403/- was demanded within 10 days from the issuance of the said letter failing which it was threatened that the operation of the said fishery would be stopped. However, the demand of amount came down to Rs. 22,29,403/- as apparent from the letter dated 09.06.2021 issued by the Managing Director, AFDC. Subsequent thereto, a representation was made by the petitioner thereby seeking for 14 days time for enabling him to deposit the amount as stated in the aforesaid letter dated 19.05.2021 and 09.06.2021. It is also submitted by Mr. Choudhury that vide letter dated 01.03.2021, the Officer-In-Charge, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Lower Page No.# 3/4 Assam Region, Abhayapuri, Bongaigaon demanded Rs.48,87,403/- and further threatened on failure to deposit the said amount, the license would be cancelled. By the subsequent letter dated 09.06.2021, though the claim was to the extent of Rs. 22,29,403/- however, it was informed to the petitioner that failure to deposit the said amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the same would amount to cancellation of the lease and thereafter, possession would be taken back. On the basis of the letter dated 09.06.2021, as the petitioner did not deposit the said demanded amount and expecting a reply in respect of the representation dated 18.06.2021 it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation through its Managing Director issued a Notification thereby dividing the said fishery into 8 numbers of separate group of Beels and Ponds. In support of the said contention Mr. Choudhury relied Annexure-47 of this writ petition and in terms of the said Notification, NIT No. 4/2021 was published covering 7 numbers of segregated beels/ponds out of the alleged 8 numbers of beels and ponds. The said NIT was published on 14.07.2021 and as per the said NIT, the last date for submission of tender is 04.08.2021. Vide another letter dated 20.07.2021, a portion of the said group of beels/ponds as alleged by Mr. Choudhury, was allowed to be operated by the private respondent No. 4 @ 600/- per day for 255 days. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that as pleaded in the writ petition, the petitioner is supposed to pay more or less Rs. 10 lakhs of outstanding kist money and he is ready to pay.
Mr. Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Assam countered the submission of Mr. Choudhury and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and under such circumstances apparently there was violation of the lease agreement for which the lease/license was cancelled vide letter dated 21.06.2021. Clarifying the settlement of the beel to the private respondent No. 4, it is his contention that the said channel does not fall within the part of the Tamranga Konora Group Fisheries which was settled with the petitioner. It is also submitted by Mr. Saikia that the claim of outstanding more or less Rs. 10 lakhs as stated in the writ petition is absolutely false inasmuch as it is Rs. 43,75,874/- as recorded in the cancellation order dated 21.06.2021. It is further clarified that the possession of the said group of beels was taken only on 21.06.2021 and not prior to that as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Page No.# 4/4 In view of the contention and the claim of the countered claim made by the learned Senior counsel, let notice be issued.
Mr. Sarma accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Necessary extra copies be served on Mr. Sarma. The petitioner shall take steps on the private respondent No. 4 within a period of three days from today by way of registered post with A/D. Notices are made returnable on 18.08.2021.
Till the next returnable date, the respondent shall go ahead with the evaluation process of the NIT impugned in this writ petition but without finalizing the same which shall be with the leave of this court and the petitioner is also granted the liberty to participate in the said tender process without prejudice to his rights and pendency of this writ petition shall not be a bar for such participation of the petitioner in the impugned NIT.
Needless to say that the tender of the petitioner shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the tender if he participates.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant