I.A.(Civil)/2497/2021 of KANAI BISWAS Vs M/S RANGAGARH MIN SILPA SAMABAY SAMITTEE LTD. AND 9 ORS. on 29 December 2021

ORDER

Arguments

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. D.Sarma, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma,the learned standing counsel for the AFDC/respondent nos. 4 to 8 andMr. S.R. Barua, learned Government counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

2) By way of the connected intra- Court appeal the applicant, who isarrayed as respondent no. 7 in WP(C) No. 6662/2021, has assailed theinterim order dated 21.12.2021, passed in WP(C) No. 6662/2021.

3) By referring to the statements made in paragraph 7 of this writpetition, the learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that therespondent no. 1 and 2 had projected in the writ petition that the letterdated 20.07.2017, by which they were awarded the Samaguri Beel (Fishery)of Nagaon district under PPP (Public Private Partnership) mode had clearindication about extension of the said fishery for another period of 7 years.It is submitted that perhaps owing to the said projection, by an order dated13.12.2021 in the writ petition, a direction was issued to the AFDC to placerelevant records in original pertaining to memo No. AFDC-444/2020/184-A,dated 26.10.2021 by which, settlement of the said fishery was made infavour of the appellant and respondent no.9. On 21.12.2021, when thematter was listed, the records are not produced and therefore, whileadjourning the matter to 24.01.2022, till then, the said order dated26.10.2021, issued by respondent no. 6 was suspended. The learned seniorcounsel for the applicant has submitted that on 15.11.2021, the applicanthad already taken over the possession of the said fishery (Annexure-G) andthat upon payment of the first instalment on the same day, an agreementwas entered into between the AFDC and the appellant on 15.11.2021(Annexure E). Accordingly, it is submitted fact that the applicant has takenover the possession of the said fishery was not disclosed in the writpetition.

4) The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 hassubmitted that the said fishery was initially settled on PPP mode in favourof one Bhaginath Das, for an initial period of four years and it was providedthat on satisfactory performance, the settlement was extendable to foranother seven years. It is submitted that the said settlement holder couldnot operate the fishery and his four years term expired on 19.07.2021 andthus, the currency of the said settlement period was from 20.07.2017 to19.07.2021 for all intense and purpose.

5) The respondent no. 1 herein M/s. Rangagarh Min Silpa SamabaySamittee Ltd was engaged for operating the said fishery for the left overperiod between 20.07.2017 to 19.07.2021. It is submitted that there was noassurance in the said settlement order under memo no. AFDC.186/2017/2718-30 dated 24.10.2017, that there would be further extensionof settlement for a further period of seven years on successful operation ofthe period of settlement. It is further submitted that after expiry of theterm, on 19.07.2021, the respondent no. 1 had submitted theirrepresentation only on 24.08.2021. By referring to the vernacular version ofthe said letter dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure-7), it is submitted that after theexpiry of the period of lease, the said representation was appropriately notresponded to. It is further submitted that as per his instructions theapplicant has already taken over the possession.

6) Considering the projection made in the connected memo of appealvide Annexure- E and G that the appellant has already taken over thepossession of the Samaguri Beel (Fishery) of Nagaon district in PPP Mode,the operation of the interim order passed on 21.12.2021, in WP(C) No.6662/2021 shall remain suspended until further order.

7) This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant