WP(C) 4501/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A R Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard D r. B Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator (Respondent No.4). Mr. G Soren, learned Govt. Advocate appears for the official respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 6.5.2010 issued by the Dy. Com missioner, Cachar whereby the No.16 Ghagra River Fishery has been settled for a second occasion with the respondent No.4 Abdul Noor Ahmed after the last tender notice issued nearly 10 years ago on 3.7.2000. 3. The offers for settlement of the fishery for a period of 3 years was inv ited earlier through tender notice dated 3.7.2000 issued by the Addl. Dy. Commis sioner and in pursuant to the tenders submitted, the settlement was granted thro ugh settlement resolution dated 18.7.2000 in favour of the respondent No.4. 4. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by non-consideration of his competit ive offer and 7.5% additional advantage claimed as a person belonging to the sch eduled caste community, challenged the settlement by filing T. S. No.54/2000 (re -numbered as T. S. No.191/2007). But after the dismissal of the said suit, the A uthorities have now issued a second settlement order in favour of respondent No. 4 on 6.5.2010, although the 3 years term of first settlement period has expired in the year 2003. 5. Considering the fact that the three years term of settlement was already over in 2003, even though the suit filed to challenge the settlement of respond ent No.4 is dismissed, there should have been a fresh settlement process. A mere dismissal of the petitioner’s suit considering the fact that the term of settle ment has already expired in the year 2003 does not enable the authorities to giv e a fresh settlement to the respondent No.4 by settlement resolution dated 18.7. 2000. It is seen that the fresh settlement has been given to respondent No.4 in the year 2010 without any tender process and merely because the suit filed by th e petitioner got dismissed, that cannot entitle the settling Authority to give s ettlement in favour of the respondent No.4 for a fresh period when the challenge in the suit was to a settlement process valid from the year 2000 to the year 20 03. 6. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the No.16 Ghagra R iver Fishery should now be settled through a regular process of settlement under the Fishery Rules. The settlement process should commence immediately and be fi nalized on or before 1.10.2010. It is ordered accordingly. 7. Until the settlement through a regular tender process is made, consideri ng that the respondent No.4 has paid his first ’Kist’ money in pursuant to the s econd settlement order dated 6.5.2010, he may operate the fishery until the fres h settlement order is made or till 1.10.2010 whichever is earlier. But it is mad e clear that the respondent No.4 shall not be entitled to operate the fishery be yond 1.10.2010, even if the settlement process cannot be finalized before the sa id date. 8. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above order.