WP(C) 2658/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who was the lessee of Kumotia Group of Fisheries under t he Assam Financial Development Corporation (in short the Corporation) for a peri od of 7(seven) years commencing from the financial years 2007-08 to 2013-14, by these petitions has challenged the orders dated 26.02.2010 and 28.04.2010 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, whereby and whereunder the settlem ent made in his favour has been cancelled on the ground of subletting and refusi ng to accept the subsequent kist money, which is the subject matter in WP(C) No. 2658/2010 and consequent sale notice dated 07.05.2011 issued by the Managing Dir ector of the Corporation for settlement of the said fishery for a period of 7(se ven) years commencing from the financial years 2011-12, which is the subject mat ter in WP(C) No.2659/2011. Both the writ petitions are taken up together, as tho se relate to the cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and consequential sale notice issued by the respondent Corporation in respect o f the same fishery and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the appearing par ties. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present cases are that pursuan t to the sale notice issued by the respondent Corporation for settlement of the aforesaid fishery, the petitioner along with others submitted their bids and acc ordingly the fishery was settled in favour of the petitioner for a period of 7(s even) years with effect from the financial years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The petitio ner has been informed about such settlement vide communication dated 19.07.2007. Accordingly the possession of the fishery was handed over to the petitioner on execution of the agreement containing a clause that in no circumstances possessi on of the fishery or any part thereof shall be handed over to any other person a nd also not to sell the fishery to any other person. The Managing Director of th e respondent Corporation on 11.12.2007 i.e. during the period of continuance of the lease, issued a notice to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the settlem ent made in his favour should not be cancelled on the ground that the management of the fishery was handed over to a 3rd party. Since the petitioner did not sub mit any reply, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation issued anothe r communication to the petitioner on 09.01.2008 giving him further 7(seven) days time to submit his reply pursuant to the earlier notice dated 11.12.2007 to sho w-cause as to why the settlement should not be cancelled for subletting and for not engaging local fishermen of fishing community. The petitioner thereafter on 24.01.2008 submitted his reply denying the allegations leveled against him. The respondent Corporation being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petit ioner decided to hold an enquiry relating to the allegation of subletting and ac cordingly the General Manager of the respondent Corporation on 26.04.2008 issued notice of hearing to the petitioner fixing 07.08.2008. The petitioner was also informed about the subsequent date of hearing i.e. on 10.11.2008 vide communicat ion dated 24.10.2008 issued by the General Manager. In the said proceeding the p etitioner participated. The General Manager of the respondent Corporation on com pletion of enquiry submitted his report on 18.04.2009 with the finding that the allegation of subletting leveled against the petitioner has been proved. The Man aging Director of the respondent Corporation thereafter passed the impugned orde r dated 26.02.2010 cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner w. e.f. 01.04.2010 on the ground of subletting, however, allowing the petitioner to manage the fishery up to 31.03.2010. The management of the fishery was taken ov er by the Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.2010, about which the petitioner was informed . The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 08.04.2010 to accept the kis t money of Rs.48,988/-, which has been refused by the Managing Director of the r espondent Corporation vide communication dated 28.04.2010 as the settlement of t he fishery has already been cancelled. Consequent upon such cancellation the res pondent Corporation issued the sale notice dated 07.05.2011 for settlement of th e fishery in question for a further period of 7(seven) years with effect from th e financial year 2011-12 i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Hence the present writ petition s. 3. I have heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. B. A hmed, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation and Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.2658 /2010. I have also heard the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent State of Assam. 4. Ms. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation has passed the impugned order of cancell ation of the settlement dated 26.02.2010 on the basis of a report submitted by t he Enquiry Officer in the enquiry conducted pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 10.12.2007 without however furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, so as to enable him to demonstrate before the Managing Direc tor that the finding recorded in such enquiry report is perverse being not based on any materials or evidence, thereby denying the petitioner the reasonable opp ortunity of being heard, which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submits that as there is no evidence on record to arrive at the finding that the petitioner has sublet the fishery in question and thereby violates the conditions of settlement, non-supply of the copy of the en quiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer caused prejudice to the petitioner as he has been deprived from demonstrating before the authority that there is n o evidence to come such finding by the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel subm its since such allegation of subletting has been made, the authority must have t he adequate evidence to cancel the order of settlement on the ground of violatio n of condition of such settlement, which is not being available, the order of ca ncellation is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submits that c onsequently the communication dated 28.04.2010 issued by the respondent authorit y refusing to accept the kist money as well as the subsequent sale notice dated 07.05.2011 also need to be set aside and the respondent authority may be directe d to accept the kist money and to allow the petitioner to manage the fishery for the remaining period of settlement. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation su pporting the order of cancellation of settlement as well as the subsequent order refusing to accept the kist money and the sale notice issued, has submitted tha t it is apparent from the evidences on record adduced during the enquiry conduct ed by the General Manager of the respondent Corporation on the allegation of sub letting that the petitioner admitted such subletting at least to one person, nam ely, Shri Jogen Das, in his statement recorded on 10.11.2008 and signed by him. The learned standing counsel, therefore, submits that the allegation of subletti ng having been admitted by the petitioner non-supply of the enquiry report befor e passing the impugned order did not cause any prejudice to him. The learned sta nding counsel further submits that since one of the condition for settlement was not to allow any person to manage the fishery or not to sell the fishery or par t thereof to any other person, the settlement has rightly been cancelled by the Managing Director vide order dated 26.02.2010 for selling part of the fishery to another person, namely, Shri Jogen Das and consequently the authority has right ly refused to accept the kist money for the subsequent period and issued the fre sh sale notice for settlement of the fishery in question. 6. Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.2658/2010 supporting the argument advanced by the learned standing counsel fo r the respondent Corporation also submits that since the factum of subletting or sell of part of the fishery has been admitted by the petitioner, no illegality has been caused by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation in cancel ling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the materials available on record produced by the learned standing counsel of the respondent Corporation. 8. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. The petitioner was issued w ith the notice dated 10.12.2007 asking him to show-cause as to why the settlemen t of the fishery in his favour made vide order dated 19.07.2007 for a period of 7(seven) years commencing from the financial year 2007-08 to 2013-14 should not be cancelled on the ground that he has handed over the possession of the part of the fishery to other persons, thereby violating the clause 21 of the agreement executed between the parties. Since no reply was submitted, another opportunity was given by the Managing Director allowing him further 7(seven) days time to fi le his reply. The petitioner accordingly on 24.01.2008 submitted his reply denyi ng the allegation made. An enquiry thereafter was conducted by the General Manag er of the respondent Corporation and on the dates of hearing including 07.06.200 8 and 10.11.2008 the petitioner was present pursuant to the notices issued by th e Enquiry Officer, namely, the General Manager. The petitioner in his signed sta tement, recorded on 10.11.2008, has admitted the induction of one Jogen Das as p artner of the said fishery and parting with part of the management of the fisher y in his favour. The translated version of the relevant portion of the said stat ement of the petitioner is reproduced below:- & & & & &.Jogen Das and I decide about the fishermen to be engaged in the fisher I inducted Jogen Das as the shareholder. His father’s name is Lt. Kameswar Das o f village Deudubi. He gets 40% of the fish and I take 60%. He helps me in all re spect. Jogen Das pays 1/3rd of the cost incurred in the fishery. I pay the rest. 9. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 18.04.2009, taking into consider ation such admitted position, has recorded the finding that the allegation level ed against the petitioner has been proved. The Managing Director of the responde nt Corporation passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2010 cancelling the settlem ent made in favour of the petitioner on the ground of violation of the condition s of the settlement, based on the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and also the materials made available on record. 10. The contention of the petitioner, as noticed above, is that since the pe titioner has not been furnished with the copy of the enquiry report dated 18.04. 2009, which is the basis for passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2010, he has been denied the opportunity to demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer could not h ave recorded the finding, there being no evidence on record to arrive at such fi nding, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. There is no dispute that the copy of the enquiry report dated 18.04.2009 has not been furnished to t he petitioner, before passing the order dated 26.02.2010 by the Managing Directo r. The respondent Corporation in the affidavit-in-opposition has admitted that f act. 11. It is by now well settled that the Rules of natural justice are foundati onal and fundamental concepts in administrative law and applicable to almost who le range of administrative powers. It is however not possible and practicable to precisely define the parameters of natural justice and also it cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It depends on the facts and circumstances of a given c ase. An order passed by the administrative authority passed even in violation of principles of natural justice may not be interfered with by the Court unless pr ejudice is shown to have been caused to the person who complaints about the same . 12. In the case in hand, as discussed above, the petitioner in his statement given in writing on 10.11.2008 in the enquiry conducted by the General Manager of the respondent Corporation into the allegation of parting with the management of the part of the fishery to another person has admitted the same. Non-furnish ing of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 18.04.2009, before passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2010 by the Managing Director of the res pondent Corporation, therefore, did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, a s he has admitted in his statement in writing dated 10.11.2008 about the parting with the part of the management of the fishery to another person. It would not make any difference whether the name of the said person was mentioned in the sho w-cause notice or not, the petitioner having admittedly violated the clause 21 o f the agreement executed between the parties containing the conditions of settle ment, as the writ court would, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, not allow a person to manage the fishery who admitted violation of condition. 13. That being the position, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of cancellation of the settlement passed by the Managing Director of the r espondent Corporation as well as the subsequent communication dated 28.04.2010 r efusing to accept the kist money for the subsequent period and the consequential sale notice dated 07.05.2011 issued for settlement of the said fishery. 14. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. N o costs.