Jagadish Mondal Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jagadish Mondal Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 (per cause title, the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.) to consider, as per the extant law, whether the petitioner ought to be granted remission for the period when possession was not handed over, to be done within 6 (six) months of submission of a certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner ought to be granted remission for the period during which possession of the Meen Mahal was not handed over to him (handed over on 22.11.2023 instead of 01.04.2023, causing 265 days of non-operation in 2023-24). +1 more

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the present writ petition by directing respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner as per the extant law as to whether remission ought to be granted for the period when possession of the Meen Mahal was not handed over to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The consideration directed to respondent No.3 shall be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is submitted to respondent No.3.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah), order dated 08.09.2025 in WP(C)/5249/2025: Jagadish Mondal Mahaldar (Shukdal Meen Mahal), Morigaon, holder of a fishery settlement for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2030, complained that the Meen Mahal was handed over to him only on 22.11.2023 instead of 01.04.2023, depriving him of 265 days of operation in 2023-24, and that his representation dated 02.07.2025 seeking redress/remission was not considered. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.3 (Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.) to consider the petitioner's case as per the extant law as to whether remission ought to be granted for the period when possession was not handed over, such consideration to be completed within 6 (six) months from submission of a certified copy of the order. No statute or precedent is cited; no quantum is awarded.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010199902025

2025:GAU-AS:12198

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5249/2025

JAGADISH MONDAL

MAHALDAR, SHUKDAL MEEN MAHAL, S/O- LATE HEMANTA KUMAR MONDAL, VILL.- SUKUTIPUTA HABI, P.O. KOROTIPAM, P.S. AND DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006.

2:THE ASSAM FISHERIES CORPORATION LTD.

REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CHACHAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI PIN- 781036. 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CHACHAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI PIN- 781036.

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CHACHAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI PIN- 781036

Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. MK Hussain

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. P Sarmah, Standing Counsel Fishery Department, Govt. of Assam

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER

08.09.2025

Heard Mr. MK Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the Fishery Department, Govt. of Assam.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 02.07.2025.

This Court duly takes note of that the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not run the Meen Mahal for 265 days during the period 2023-24 as the Meen Mahal was handed over to the petitioner on 22.11.2023 instead of 01.04.2023.

Mr. P Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department, however, submitted that the petitioner has been given the settlement for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2030.

This Court disposes of the present writ petition directing the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner as per the extant law as to whether

Page No.# 3/3

the petitioner ought to be granted remission for that period when the petitioner was not handed over the possession. The same shall be done within a period of 6(six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is submitted to the respondent No.3.

Writ petition, accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant