WA 10/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J. CHELAMESWAR. HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (BK SHARMA,J.) - This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.20 06 passed in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.262/2006. By the said judgment , the challenge made to the order dated 18.1.2006, by which the fishery in quest ion was settled with the Respondent No.4, was rejected. 2. The two-fold submissions made by Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the a ppellant are that the Respondent No.4 being not in the neighbourhood of the fis hery and the said society being in the district of Barpeta and the fishery being situated in the district of Kamrup, could not have been settled with the fisher y and that since the Respondent No.4, at the time of making the settlement, was a defaulter in respect of payment of revenue in respect of an earlier settlement of another fishery, was not entitled to get the settlement. 3. Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, submits that there is no requirement of Rule 12 of the Ass am Fishery Rules, 1953 that the tenderer must belong to the same district where the fishery is situated. He further submits that at the time of making the settl ement in favour of the Respondent No.4, the society was not a defaulter. 4. Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that there is some confusion regarding the question relating to the Respondent No.4 being a defaulter and as such, it would be appropriate to remand the matter bac k to the Government for fresh consideration. 5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has produced photo copy of th e judgment and decree dated 27.4.2007 passed in Title Suit No.24/2006. The suit was filed by the Respondent No.4 against the proposed action of the Deputy Comm issioner of the district to realize the outstanding dues from the Respondent No. 4 in respect of the aforesaid earlier settlement. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the judgment and decree dated 15.9 .2000 passed in Title Suit No.8/1996, by which the learned Civil Judge (Senior D ivision), Barpeta held that the Respondent No.4 was not a defaulter. The said j udgment and decree finds mention in the judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 passe d in the subsequent suit i.e. T.S. No.22/2006. Although it was pleaded by the R espondent No.4 that in view of the earlier judgment and decree, the Deputy Commi ssioner could not have made any demand for payment of any outstanding amount, bu t it was observed in the later judgment that only the photocopy of the judgment and decree was produced and no effort was made to bring the records of the earli er title suit. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has produced the photocopy of the requisition issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to the Respond ent No.4 making a demand for payment of Rs.81,294/-. From all these materials, i t is the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant that at the ti me of making the settlement, the Respondent No.4 was a defaulter. 7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has not ment ioned anything about the Bakijai proceeding and/or the demand made to the Respon dent No.4 in respect of the alleged default. However, on the basis of the peri od of settlement of the fishery in respect of which default of revenue payment h as been alleged, the learned Single Judge held that the Respondent No.4 cannot b e said to be a defaulter. If the Respondent No.4, at the time of settlement of t he fishery by order dated 18.1.2006, was a defaulter in payment of Govt. revenue , same would have adverse consequence in the matter of settlement of the fishery with it. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the inherent contradiction, we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs fresh consideration of the G overnment in the Department of Fishery. It will be open for the appellant as wel l as the Respondent No.4 to place their respective cases before the said authori ty. After giving fresh consideration in the matter on the basis of the existing materials as on the date of settlement, the said authority may decide the issue as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 3 (three) months from today. While doing so, the authority may also consult the jurisdictional De puty Commissioner, who has alleged default on the part of the Respondent No.4. 9. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. Till the matte r is decided afresh by the competent authority of the Fishery Department, status quo as on today in respect of possession of the fishery shall be maintained. 10. Writ appeal is disposed of.