Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ppp in Page No.# 1/14 vs The Assam Fisheries Development ... on 18 June, 2024Matching Fragments
9. The petitioners' counsel submits that the petitioners' fishery settlement period of 7 years was due to end on 31.03.2023. However, a decision was taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, for extension to the settlement of the fishery with the petitioners for a further period of 4 years under the PPP mode, on the Page No.# 5/14 basis of the order dated 25.02.2021 and the Agreement dated 01.07.2021. He submits that the petitioner had been settled with the fishery under the PPP mode without call of tender, by way of an extension of the earlier settlement order dated 28.10.2016. He submits that on the petitioners requests, permission was given by the respondents to construct embankments at their own cost within the Fishery to increase productivity. The petitioners had incurred huge expenditure for the development of the fishery and as such, the respondents could not have cancelled the settlement of the fishery on PP mode with the petitioners, without issuance of a prior notice. He also submits that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted in the case of the petitioners and that the PPP extension order not being a fresh settlement, no tender notice was required to be issued, prior to settlement of the fishery in PPP mode with the petitioners.
Page No.# 6/14
11. The learned counsel for the AFDC submits that the impugned order dated 08.04.2022, which cancelled the fisheries settled under the PPP mode, had been put to challenge in a batch of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) No.2192/2022, which was disposed of on 21.09.2022. In the said judgment and order dated 21.09.2022, this Court had examined whether the settlement of the fisheries under the PPP mode had been done in accordance with law. This Court had held that the general principles of distribution of State largesse, namely, maintenance of transparency and fairness have to be strictly adhered to and such settlement has to be preceded by a procedure recognised by law. It further held that the concept of PPP in settlement of Fisheries was alien to the Rules governing the field and settlement could only be given by means of a tender process, strictly in accordance with the Rules. However, as the settlement of fisheries under the PPP mode was not preceded by a tender notice, the cancellation of the settlement of the fisheries under the PPP mode was not interfered with by this Court.
17. As can be seen from the foregoing paragraphs, the fishery had been settled with the petitioners for 7 years till 31.03.2023. However, prior to completion of the settlement period of 7 years, a deed of agreement for management of the fishery in PPP mode was made on 01.07.2021, on the basis of an order issued on 25.02.2021. There was no tender issued on the basis of which the settlement of the fishery was made on PPP mode.
18. In the judgment and order dated 21.09.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) 2192/2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the only manner of making settlement by the AFDC of the Fisheries vested with it, is to call for tenders by strictly following the principles of fairness and transparency which are the hallmarks in matters of distribution of State largesse. It also held that the concept of PPP in settlement Page No.# 9/14 of fisheries is alien to the Rules governing the field and settlement can be given only by means of a tender process, strictly in accordance with the Rules.
20. What is clear from the judgment and order dated 21.09.2022 is that the AFDC through it's Managing Director, could not have invented a new concept of PPP to settle fisheries to the exclusion of other bidders. In the present case, the petitioners' settlement for 7 years would have ended on 31.03.2023. Keeping in view paragraph 55 of the judgment and order dated 21.09.2022 in WP(C) 2192/2022, it is clear that the settlement under the PPP mode, made by way of a deed of agreement dated 01.07.2021 and the respondent no.3's order dated 25.02.2021 was patently illegal, as no tender had been called for settlement of Page No.# 11/14 the fishery by way of the PPP mode. In fact, the agreement for settlement of the fishery in PPP mode for 4 years, i.e., during the original 7 year settlement period, amounted to illegally extending the settlement of the fishery for another 1 year. The deed of agreement dated 01.07.2021 had a provision for further extension for 7 years, which would enable the petitioners to operate the fishery for 15 years, in total violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT, wherein the settlement of the fishery was to be for a period of 7 years only. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the colour of extension given to the 7 year settlement period vide the agreement dated 01.07.2021 is patently illegal. This Court is accordingly of the view that the agreement dated 01.07.2021 is a fresh settlement made under the PPP mode, as the original settlement was not under the PPP mode. Thus, tender had to be issued for settling the fishery under the PPP mode, which was not done.