WP(C) 4429/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Both the writ petitions questioning the legality and validity of the ord er passed by the authority granting extension of the lease period in respect of the fishery in question for another term of two years w.e.f. 22.09.07 to 22.09.0 9, are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. It is the grievance of the petitioners that by giving such extension to the sitt ing lessee, their right of participation in the process of settlement has been f rustrated. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J.I. Borbuy an, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4430/07 and Mr. J.C. Bora h, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4429/07. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel who has produced the relevant records . Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Roy Choudhury, lear ned counsel has argued on behalf of the private respondent who has been given fu rther extension of lease period. Upon reference to Rule 8 (b) of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 and the documents annexed to the writ petitions, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the e xtension has been granted to the private respondents in a most arbitrary and ill egal manner. On the other hand, it is case of the private respondents that such extension has been granted considering the ground realities and the attending f acts and circumstances. Rule 8 (b) of the Rules, reads as follows: (i) Where & & & & & & the period of lease of registered fisheries being ordinar not less than three years is interfered with, due to any natural cause or for an y unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the lessees, Government may extend t he period of such lease supported by official reports as to the nature of cause in exceptionally special cases for a reasonable period so as to enable such lea ssees to make good the loss. Annexures -12 and 13 documents annexed to the writ petition are the audi ted balance sheets of loss and profit in respect of the private respondent socie ty, i.e. respondent No. 5. They are for the periods of 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As per the said two reports, the respondent No. 5 Society earned substantial pro fit from the fishery business. In the audited reports, no loss incurred by the s aid society was shown. It is on the above basis, the respective learned counsel for the petitio ners submits that the authority could not have granted the extension without tak ing into account the said audited reports. It is the further case of the petitio ners that the respondent No. 5 is the beneficiary of settlement of another fishe ry. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel representing the respondent No. 5, submits that the authority in consideration of the reports furnished by the j urisdictional Deputy Commissioner, has granted the extension. He further submits that the respondent No. 5 having incurred loss in running the fishery in questi on, the petitioners cannot upon reference to the profit earned by the Society in respect of another fishery, make a grievance in respect of the extension grante d. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel who has produced the records, submi ts that the extension has been granted in valid consideration. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties. I have also perused the materials on record. The impugned order of extension dated 16.07.07 makes a mention of two re ports dated 02.04.07 and 04.07.07 respectively furnished by the Deputy Commissio ner, Morigaon. According to the said two reports, the respondent No. 5 incurred loss due to natural calamities, like flood, sedimention and drought like situa tion etc. It is on the basis of the aforesaid two reports, the extension was grant ed in favour of the respondent No. 5. I have perused the two reports which are i n fact, dated 02.06.07 and 04.07.07. In the first report dated 02.06.07, the Dep uty Commissioner simply forwarded the report furnished by his subordinate office r, i.e. the S.D.O. (C) to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Fishery Dep artment. The enquiry was caused on the basis of the papers/documents filed by the respondent No. 5 and the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the report furn ished by the S.D.O. (C) made the communication dated 02.06.07. In the report prepared on 31.05.07, it was indicted that there was less production of fish. However, there was no indication that the respondent No. 5 s uffered any financial loss. The second report furnished by the Deputy Commissioner is also based on another report furnished by the S.D.O. (C). It is not understood as to why the s econd report was required after submitting the first report on 02.06.07. However , the records have revealed that the second report was prepared on the basis of further persuasion made by the respondent no. 5 submitting his own assessment of loss and profit in business. In this connection, the respondent No. 5 society p repared its own statements and furnished the same to the S.D.O. (C). Based on t hat, the S.D.O. (C) prepared the report on 02.07.07. Thus, the only document ava ilable before the S.D.O. (C) was the statement prepared by the respondent No. 5. However, the most reliable report, i.e. the audited report of the society was n ot before the S.D.O. (C) while preparing the said report. On the basis of such report furnished by the S.D.O. (C), the Deputy Comm issioner of the District simply recommended the case of the respondent No. 5 to the Govt. In the process he did not make any independent assessment of the matte r. The impugned order only refers to the aforesaid two letters of the Deput y Commissioner and does not refer to the reports of the S.D.O. (C). However, it is presumed that the authority also took into account the reports of the S.D.O.( C) which were admittedly not based on the audited reports of the Society for the period 2004-05 and 2005-06. From the above, it will be seen that the extension was granted to the re spondent No. 5 as a routine affair without any independent assessment of the gro und realities of the facts and circumstance involved in the case. Rule 8 (b) of the Rules empowers the authorities to grant extension in e xceptionally special cases for a reasonable period so as to enable such lessees to make good the loss. Thus, extension cannot be granted as a matter of course . Neither the records nor the impugned order reveals recording of any rea son for categorizing the case to be an exceptionally special case so as to requi re extension of the period of lease. The power and jurisdiction vested under Rul e 8 (b) of the Fishery Rules is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be made a t ool for granting extension even in an undeserving case. The records do not reve al any such circumstances. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.07.07 stands set aside and quashed. The matter shall now go back to the authority for fresh considerat ion for settlement of the fishery in accordance with rules. To protect the inte rest of the revenue of the State, it is expected that the authority shall decid e the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order along with a copy of the wri t petition and its enclosures. Writ petitions stand disposed of.