Disposed

Abdul Hannan Barbhuiya v. MD Masiur Rahman and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2024Review.Pet./103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed to clarify observations in a prior order regarding illegalities in a fishing permission. The Court held that since the permission was bad in law, its violation does not bar the petitioner from future settlements and ordered the review petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of with clarification that observations on illegality do not bar future settlement applications.

Abdul Hannan Barbhuiya Vs MD Masiur Rahman and 7 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010110172024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./103/2024

¶5

ABDUL HANNAN BARBHUIYA

¶6

S/O- LT. KHALILUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, VILL- NOON NAGAR, P.O. KATIGORAH, P.S. KATIGORAH, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MD MASIUR RAHMAN AND 7 ORS S/O- LT. JAIN UDDIN, VILL- BEHARA PART-VI, P.O. HILARA, P.S. KATIGORAH, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788805

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF REVENUE DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FISHERY DISPUR GHY-6

¶11

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶12

CACHAR ASSAM SILCHAR 788001

¶13

5:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER CACHAR AND HAILAKANDI DISTRICT SILCHAR CACHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM 788001 6:THE ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER KATIGORAH REVENUE CIRCLE KATIGORAH DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM 788805 7:HE DISTRICT FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM 8:NURUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA S/O- LT. ABDUL SATTAR BARBHUIYA VILL- NOON NAGAR P.O. KATIGORAH P.S. KATIGORAH DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM 78880

¶16

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, Advocate

¶17

For the respondent (s) : Mr. P. Sarma, SC, Fishery Deptt. Mr. I. Alam, Advocate

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶20

02.08.2024

¶21

Heard Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Fishery Department, Government of Assam as well as Mr. I. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners.

¶22

The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 04.01.2024 passed in WP(C) No.4634/2020. The ground alleged in the instant review petition is that the petitioner herein who was

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

the respondent No.7 in the writ proceedings did not violate any terms and conditions of the permission, and as such, the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 is required to be reviewed in so far as interfering with the allotment made in favor of the review petitioner.

¶25

This Court has perused the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024. From a perusal of the said judgment, more particularly at paragraph No.9, it is clear that this Court had assigned various reasons for forming the opinion in the said judgment. One of such grounds assigned for allowing the writ petition and thereby interfering with the allotment made in favour of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 was that even assuming that the permission so granted was a valid permission, then also the respondent Nos.7 & 8 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the permission.

¶26

This Court further finds it very pertinent to observe that in the said judgment, it was categorically held that the permission so granted by the respondent No.4 also illegal and unauthorized. Under such circumstances, the ground on which the review has been sought for, in the opinion of this Court, is not a ground on which a review application can be entertained.

¶27

Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the observation so made in the said judgment dated 04.01.2024 which has been sought to be reviewed to the effect that there were certain illegalities committed by the review petitioner would affect the review petitioner in participating in the future settlement proceedings of the fishery, and as such, this Court may clarify the said aspect of the matter.

¶28

It is seen from the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 that this

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

Court had interfered with the allotment made in favor of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 of the writ petition. This Court held that the permission so granted by the Settlement Officer in favour of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 of the writ petition was not in accordance with law.

¶31

Under such circumstances, the observations so made in the judgment and order sought to be reviewed has to be taken as observations made in the context of the respondent authorities committing illegalities in granting the permission to the review petitioner. In that view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the observation so made would not bar the petitioner to participate in future settlements.

¶32

In addition to that, this Court further observes that as the permission so granted in favor of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 by the respondent No.4 has been held to be bad in law, the question of violation of the said permission would not affect the review petitioner in applying for future settlement in as much as when the permission was illegal and bad in law, the violation thereof would have no consequences.

¶33

With the above clarifications, the review petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Hannan Barbhuiya v. MD Masiur Rahman and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hannan Barbhuiya v. MD Masiur Rahman and 7 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

Smc Global Securities Ltd. Vs Mr Piyush Khemani and Anr.

Smc Global Securities Ltd. Vs Mr Piyush Khemani and Anr.

Jiten Bhuyan Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Kanhaiya Yadav Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bakula Hachin @ Bakula Hasin Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Lalit Duarah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.