WP(C) 1924/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr . A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Annexure-IV order da ted 22.03.2010 issued by the SDO (Civil), Bilasipara restraining the respondent No. 5, one Shri Chitta Das, Secretary of Snanghat Fishery Co-operative Society L td. from carrying out fishing at 5/74 Tipkai Fishery pursuant to show cause noti ce etc., he has not obeyed the said order. By the said order, earlier temporary permission issued vide order dated 26.06.2008 was cancelled. Be it stated here t hat the petitioner was the earlier lessee for the period which came to an end in 2008. The respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit in opposition bringing on re cord that the Snanghat Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. is no longer represente d by Shri Chitta Das named in the writ petition. He was removed from the Secreta ryship of the Society as per AGM held on 25.10.2009 which was approved on 25.10. 09. The appeal filed by said Mr. Chitta Das has also been dismissed by order dat ed 07.03.2011. Thus, the very basis of making any challenge for operating the fi shery by said Shri Chitta Das does not survive. The respondent No. 5 Society has also brought on record that 5/74 Tipkai Fishery Mahal has been settled with it vide order dated 17.08.2010 issued by th e District Fishery Development Officer, Kokrajhar in the name of the Present Sec retary, Snanghat Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid fishery falls in two districts, one part in Dhubri and another part i n Kokrajhar. In this connection, he has referred to the statements made in parag raph-13 of the writ petition in which it has been prayed that a direction to th e respondent No. 4 not to allow the respondent No. 5 to catch fish at 5/74 Tipk ai Fishery Mahal under jurisdiction of Dhubri District is called for. He has a lso produced two letters dated 29.07.08 and 16.05.09. In the letter dated 29.07. 08 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and SDO (Civil), Bilasipara by t he Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Fishery Department permission w as accorded for settlement of the fishery under Dhubri District on daily basis. In the letter it was observed that the BTC had also issued an order for settleme nt of a part of the fishery vide order dated 26.06.2008. Accordingly views were sought for by the said letter. By the second letter dated 05.09.09 addressed to the Principal Secretary , BTC, Kokrajhar by the SDO (C), Bilasipara, a request was made to depute land r ecord staff with relevant records for performing joint verification in respect o f determination of boundary of 5/74 Tipkai Fishery Mahal under Dhubri District. On perusal of both the letters, there is nothing to indicate that 5/74 T ipkai Fishery Mahal has been divided into two parts, one falling in Dhubri Distr ict and the other falling in Kokrajhar District. By the said two letters clarif ication was sought for and proposal was made for demarcation etc. So far as the contention of the petitioner in paragraph 13 referred to above is concerned, sa me is in the nature of prayer for direction to the respondent No. 4 to restrain the respondent No. 5 from catching fish at 5/74 Tipkai Fishery Mahal under the j urisdiction of Dhubri District. In the instant proceeding, we are concerned with the grievance of the p etitioner that inspite of cancellation of the order by which temporary settlemen t of the fishery was made with the respondent No. 5, he has been operating the f ishery and thus, he should be restrained. He is no longer the Secretary of Sna nghat Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd., as noted above. The settlement order in favour of the respondent No. 5 by the aforesaid order dated 17.08.10 (Annexure-III) to the affidavit in opposition pursuant to t ender notice dated 13.07.2010 is also not under challenge in this proceeding. In fact, there is no whisper in the writ petition about the said tender process. H owever, Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitio ner is not concerned with that part of the fishery in respect of which settlemen t order has been made in favour of the respondent No. 5, but the petitioner is c oncerned with other part of the fishery which falls in Dhubri District. In absence of any materials to show demarcation of the fishery and divid ing the same into two parts, this court is not in a position to issue any order which may have bearing in respect of the settlement made in favour of the respon dent No. 5 by the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2010. However, the matter is left open to be decided by the State Govt. in the Fishery Department in consultation of the authorities of the BTC. Writ petition is disposed of. Interim order passed on 04.04.2011 stands vacated.