Simanta Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Simanta Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: Respondent Authorities directed to conclude the settlement proceedings for Gelasinga Meen Mahal in accordance with law within a time frame (indicated to be 15 days); interim order, if any, vacated; petitioner expressly left free to challenge any adverse decision of the Settling Authority regarding his fisherman certificate without prejudice.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to bring to an end the delayed settlement proceedings for the Gelasinga Meen Mahal. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking into account the limited prayer made in the writ petition, and without commenting on the legality or validity of the petitioner's fisherman certificate, the Court directed the Respondent Authorities to conclude the settlement proceedings in respect of Gelasinga Meen Mahal in accordance with law within a time frame; the Additional Senior Government Advocate indicated this would be done within 15 days.

Key takeaways

The Court observed that it had not decided on the legality and validity of the petitioner's fisherman certificate, and that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Settling Authority, the decision in the present writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner from challenging such decision in accordance with law.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Single Bench, Justice Devashis Baruah), Order dated 29.10.2025 in WP(C)/5057/2025: Simanta Das v. State of Assam & Ors. The writ petition complained of delay by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. and its Managing Director) in completing the settlement of the Gelasinga Meen Mahal, and prayed for directions to culminate the settlement by awarding the contract to the valid highest bidder. During hearing, the newly impleaded respondent No. 7 (represented by Mr. N. Borah) claimed to be the second highest bidder and alleged that the petitioner's fisherman certificate was forged; the Additional Senior Government Advocate reported that an enquiry had found the certificate not genuine, while the petitioner's counsel objected to that contention. The Court noted that the delay in concluding the settlement proceedings also affected revenue otherwise earnable by the Respondent Authorities. Without commenting on the legality or validity of the petitioner's fisherman certificate, and taking account of the limited prayer, the Court directed the Respondent Authorities to conclude the settlement proceedings in accordance with law within a time frame (indicated as 15 days); the writ petition stood disposed of and any interim order was vacated. The Court expressly recorded that it had not decided the question of the legality and validity of the fisherman certificate, and that its decision would not prejudice the petitioner from challenging any decision of the Settling Authority in accordance with law.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010216422025

2025:GAU-AS:14553

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

Case No.: WP(C)/5057/2025

SIMANTA DAS SON OF LATE GUNIN DAS R/O VILL- HABIAL GAON P.O. GANAK PUKHURI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785622

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

2:THE ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHASAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI-781036. 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CHASAL VIP ROAD GUWAHATI-781036.

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (D.C.)

GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

PIN-785621

5:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

DERGAON DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM

6:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. B. Rahman, Advocate

For the respondent (s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. R. Chetry, SC, AFDC Mr. N. Borah, Advocate

BEFORE

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

29.10.2025

Heard Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Administration, Golaghat. Mr. R. Chetry, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the AFDC and Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent No.7.

The petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the delay in completion of the settlement process

Page No.# 3/4

by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in respect to the Gelasinga Meen Mahal and therefore sought for appropriate directions for culmination of the said settlement process by awarding the contract to the valid highest bidder.

Mr. N. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent No.7 submitted that he is the second highest bidder, but the petitioner has no claim in respect to the said settlement in as much as the fisherman certificate so submitted by the petitioner was a forged document.

Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submitted that an enquiry was also conducted, and in pursuance to the enquiry, it was found that the fisherman certificate submitted by the petitioner is not a genuine one.

Mr. B. Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, strenuously objects to the contention that the certificate of the petitioner is fake.

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also taken into account as to why the petitioner has approached this Court. The grievance of the petitioner herein is delay in conclusion of the settlement proceedings.

This Court further takes note that delay in conclusion of the

Page No.# 4/4

settlement proceedings affects the revenue which the Respondent Authorities otherwise would be earning.

Accordingly, taking into account the limited prayer made in the writ petition, this Court, without commenting on the legality or validity of the fisherman certificate of the petitioner, directs the Respondent Authorities to conclude the settlement proceedings in respect of Gelasinga Meen Mahal in accordance with law within a time frame.

Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that the same would be done within 15 days.

With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

It is observed that this Court had not decided on the aspect regarding the legality and validity of the fisherman certificate of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Settling Authority, the decision in the present writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner to challenge such decision in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant