WP(C) 1781/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Das, learne d standing counsel, BTC. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.4, and Ms. V.L. Singh, learned counsel for the State respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21/1/2011, issued by the District Fishery Development Officer Kokrajhar settling Silia Nalia Group Fisher y with the private respondent for a period of 3 years commencing from 1/4/2007 a nd ending on 31/3/2010. The petitioner is the president of Singra Tuli & Silai B eel Fish and Horticulture Development Society in Kokrajhar district of BTC. The petitioner society has been operating the fishery in question till date and its term will end on 31/3/2011. In the meantime, the District Fishery Development Of ficer issued the impugned order without inviting tender and without considering the representation of the petitioner seeking extension of the lease period. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to Rule 3 of Assam Fishery Rules 1953, ( ’the Rules’) and submits that it is mandatory on th e part of the respondent authority to invite a tender before settling the fisher y in question to any one. According to the learned counsel, the settlement of th e fishery in favour of the private respondent without following the procedure la id down in the rules is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Das, learned standing counsel BTC submits that as the subject of fishery has not been transferred to the BTC formally by the State respondents, no tender proces s could be done as yet. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the private respondent points out that he has already deposited 15% of the instalment as performance security, but for this he would have no objection inviting fresh tender. If the impugned order is quashed , so submits the learned counsel for the respondent, immense loss will be caused to the private respondent. To my mind, the contention of the learned counsel for the BTC that as the subjec t of fishery has not been handed over to the BTC, in terms of Rule 3 of the Rule s and as such, informal settlement was made with the private respondent without issuing NIT, is a contradiction in terms. If the subject has not been transferre d, I am made to understand how even informal settlement can be made in favour of the private respondent. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel in th is behalf is to be noted only to be rejected. The provisions of Rule 3 of the Ru les is unambiguous in nature and cannot be circumvented by the BTC. In the circumstances, this writ petition partly succeeds. The BTC is directed to commence the process of inviting tender to settle the fishery in question immed iately and complete the same on or before 6/6/2011. Till then, the private respo ndent will be allowed to run the fishery. However, in the event of the BTC not c ompleting the process before 6/6/2011, the impugned order stands quashed without further reference from this Court. A copy of this writ petition be furnished to the learned counsel for BTC by 31/3 /2011.