Dismissed

M/S Dehing Part I Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2022WP(C)/400/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a settlement holder of a fishery, filed a writ petition alleging fish mortality due to toxic substances, seeking directions for enquiry, prevention of toxicity, and suspension of kist payments. The Court found the writ petition devoid of merit based on the respondents' reports and survey findings and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed, with no interim directions granted to suspend payments or coercive actions.

M/S Dehing Part I Fishery Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010009062022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/400/2022

¶5

M/S DEHING PART I FISHERY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED DIBRUGARH, DIST-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI PRAFULLA HAZARIKA, S/O LATE HITESWAR HAZARIKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL- DEHINGTHAN, P.O.-ITAKHULI, P.S.BORBORUA, DIBRUGARH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786007

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶8

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶9

3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (R) DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶10

4:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶11

5:THE OFFICER INCHARGE TENGAKHAT POLICE STATION TENGAKHAT DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶12

6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TENGAKHAT REVENUE CIRCLE

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

DIBRUGARH

¶15

7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MORAN REVENUE CIRCLE DIBRUGAR

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶20

10/06/2022

¶21

Heard Ms. S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

¶22

Petitioner is the settlement holder of Dehing Nadi Part-II Fishery in the District of Dibrugarh, which was settled with it by the authorities in the Fishery Department of the State vide order No. FISH 61/2008/213 dated 22.04.2020 on daily basis from Khowang Ghat to Sologuri @ Rs.700 per day based on bid value of Rs.2,55,555/- in the last regular settlement until further order as per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, possession of the said fishery was handed over to the petitioner on 16.05.2020 and since then, it is managing the said Government fishery.

¶23

On 17.12.2021, petitioner submitted a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Tengakhat Police Station stating that within the area of Sologuri to Saharikota Motighat of Dehing Part-II fishery as some miscreants had given poison due to which large number of fishes of the said fishery died, requesting the said authority to enquire into the said matter to punish the culprits.

¶24

Further, on 20.12.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Circle Officer, Tengakhat Revenue Circle with regard to the said incident requesting the authorities to enquire into the matter and to arrest the accused persons and to do the needful, serving copies of the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and the District Fishery Development Officer, Dibrugarh.

¶25

It is submitted by the petitioner that as the respondent authorities did not act upon with regard to its complaints lodged before the Officer-in-Charge as well as the Circle Officer of Tengakhat

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

Revenue Circle, it has preferred this writ petition praying amongst others for a direction to the respondents to take necessary action to make the Dehing Part-II Fishery of Dibrugarh District free from impact of toxic substances and in the interim, prayed for a direction to the respondents not to insist upon payment of Kist money from the petitioner society in respect of Dehing Part-II Fishery of Dibrugarh District until the said fishery is made free from the impact of toxic substance, so that the fishes are safely consumable and further, not to take any coercive action against the petitioner society.

¶28

It is seen from the copy of the complaint lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Tengakhat Police Station (Annexure-V/A) as well as the copy of the representation dated 20.12.2022 submitted before the Circle Officer, Tengakhat Revenue Circle (Annexure-VI/VIA) that the petitioner did not mention the date as to when the said incident took place.

¶29

The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh has submitted its affidavit in the matter stating that direction were issued to the Circle Officer, Moran/Tengakhat Revenue Circle as well as the District Fishery Development Officer, Dibrugarh on 21.12.2021 with regard to the complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding mortality of fishes due to release of toxic substance in Dehing Part-II Fishery to which the Circle Officer, Tengakhat Revenue Circle on 28.12.2021 informed the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dibrugarh that the concerned Lot Mandal had enquired into the matter and submitted its report stating that as per the oral confirmation given by the local residents and as per the photographic evidence provided by the complainant, i.e., the petitioner, said Lot Mandal confirmed that it was an incident of releasing toxic substances in the Dehing Part-II fishery that causes mortality of fishes. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, being not satisfied with the said report of the Circle Officer, Tengakhat Revenue Circle, Tengakhat that was given on the basis of report of the concerned Lot Mandal on 10.02.2022 again directed the Circle Officer to submit its report.

¶30

Pursuant to the same, the Circle Officer, Tengakhat Revenue Circle, Tengakhat on 11.02.2022 submitted that the concerned Lot Mandal submitted his report based on the interaction with the local residents who saw dead fishes in the Dehing Part-II Fishery which was also evident in the photographs submitted by the complainant, i.e., the petitioner stating further that there was no conclusive proof regarding release of any such toxic materials in the water resulting in the mortality of fishes, clarifying further that it is not possible to confirm technically from his end whether the mortality of fishes was due to the release of toxic substances or not.

¶31

The District Fishery Development Officer, Dibrugarh by its communication dated 15.02.2022 submitted its enquiry report before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh which was

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

conducted by the Fishery Demonstrator Lahowal, Dibrugarh, wherein it was stated that after the said information regarding mortality of fishes at Romai Ghat, Lahowal from the local Gaonburha on 17.12.2021, though they rushed to the site along with the local Gaonburha but on reaching the place concerned, they did not see any such dead fishes in and around the spot and after discussion with the people nearby the site, they came to know that they observed the dead fishes in and around 5:00/6:00 AM that were flowing from the upper stretch of the river from which the said officer presumed that the mortality of fishes as complained might have occurred due to the transitional toxicity of the river water itself.

¶34

The Pollution Control Board, Assam on 15.02.2022 with regard to the said incident submitted its report on the basis of the water sample collected from the site. The samples were tested in the laboratory at Sivasagar Office of the said Board, which reveals that there was no visible discharge of domestic and industrial waste into Class “A” waters clarifying that the surface water quality standard is within permissible limit for surface water for fisheries.

¶35

At this stage, the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have not allowed the petitioner to operate the said fishery, though, from the order dated 22.04.2022 of the Fishery Department of the State, it can be seen that petitioner was allowed to operate the said fishery on daily basis @ Rs. 700/- per day until further order of the Deputy Commissioner concerned.

¶36

In view of the above, if the petitioner has any such grievances in operating the said Dehing Part-II Fishery, he may approach the authority concerned in that regard.

¶37

Considering the above and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the Court is of the view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

M/S Dehing Part I Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dehing Part I Fishery Co-Operative Society Limited 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

Pulin Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

The Chairman Vs Rofiquel Islam and 5 Ors.

The Union of India and Anr. Vs Valerius Ekka and 42 Ors.

M/S Roshni Gas Service Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dipanjali Bora Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Aswini Bezbaruah Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.