Disposed

Narayan Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022WP(C)/3629/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interference in fishing activities despite valid settlement from Assam Fisheries Development Corporation. Holders of settlement disputed Mising Autonomous Council's status and term. Court directed authorities to ensure petitioner can engage in fishing without disturbance.

What did the court decide?

Fishery settlement to be secured; District Administration and SP directed to ensure petitioner can carry out fishing activities without disturbance.

Narayan Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010112042021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3629/2021

¶5

NARAYAN DAS

¶6

S/O LATE BANABASI DAS

¶7

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UPPER TAMERA,PS DERGAON, PO BADULIPAR, SUB DIVISION BOKAKHAT, DIST GOLAGHAT, 785611, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶11

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERIES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶12

3:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶13

GOLAGHAT COURT ROAD GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785621

¶14

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOLAGHAT KACHUGAON ASSAM 785621

¶15

5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED CHACHAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI 781036 KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶18

6:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL PO GAOGAMUKH DIST DHEMAJI ASSAM 787034 7:PRESIDENT SRI PRASANTA LOYING DISOI VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VILLAGE UPER TEMERA PO BADULIPARA GOLAGHAT ASSAM 78561

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K DAS

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶22

ORDER

¶23

17-08-2022

¶24

Heard Dr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. (herein after AFDC) whereas, the State is represented by Shri B. Deuri, the learned State Counsel.

¶25

The Mising Autonomous Council is represented by Shri D. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel whereas, Shri D. Doley, learned counsel is present for the respondent no. 7.

¶26

The grievance raised in this writ petition is interference by the Mising

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

Autonomous Council in the fishing activities of the petitioner with regard to the settlement duly granted to him by the AFDC of the Moridisoi Sengelisuti Beel in the district of Golaghat.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that a notice was published for settlement of the aforesaid Fishery on 23.07.2019 and in the tender process, the bid of the petitioner was found most suitable and was, accordingly allotted settlement of the Fishery for a period of seven years. After being handed over possession, the petitioner could learn that the Mising Autonomous Council had also settled the same Fishery with the respondent no.7.

¶30

It is contended that numerous representations and objections were made by the petitioner before the authorities to create an atmosphere so as to allow him to engage in the fishing activities to which he is legally entitled to. However, till date no effective steps have been taken.

¶31

Dr Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that contrary thereto, the District Administration has directed both the parties to restrain from fishing activities.

¶32

Shri Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel, AFDC submits that the settlement by the Mising Autonomous Council is not recognized by law, as no such powers are vested to the said Council. A similar stand is also taken by Shri B. Deuri, the learned State Counsel, who further submits that the Mising Autonomous Council is not even a Council under the Sixth Schedule.

¶33

Shri Doley, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 submits that without entering into the merits of the powers of the Mising Autonomous Council to make such settlement, he submits that the term of the settlement made with him is already over and therefore, as on today, there should not be any impediment.

¶34

Shri Gogoi, the learned counsel representing the Mising Autonomous Council submits that as on today, there is no settlement of the Fishery, in question, by the

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

Mising Autonomous Council.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the clarification made both by the Mising Autonomous Council and the respondent no. 7, the District Administration, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat as well as the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat are directed to take immediate steps to ensure that the petitioner, who was duly settled with the Moridisoi Sengelisuti Beel, is in a position to carry out the fishing activities without disturbance from any quarters.

¶38

It is needless to state that the said authorities are at liberty to take all further steps as per law for due compliance of the aforesaid direction.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Narayan Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Das v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabita Das Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bipasa Somim Alom Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Hafiz Idris Ali Ahmed Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Anita Lahkar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Padmaraj Rj Vs Griham Foods and Hotel Pvt. Lmtd.

M/S Marajan Meen Palan Atma Sahayak Got Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.