WP(C) 2082/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. MK Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. VL Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. MH Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. None appears for the respond ent No.6, though an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on his behalf and the name of the learned counsel appearing for him is reflected in the cause list. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that though they fil ed 2 (two) representations, one dated 21st October, 2008 and the other dated 31s t October, 2008 before the Assistant Registrar of Fisheries Co-operative Societi es intimating the said authority that after obtaining the settlement of fishery by the respondent No.5, the same was sold to the respondent No.6, in violation o f the provisions of the Assam Fishery Rules and the terms and conditions of such settlement, nothing has been done by the said authority till date. The petitio ners, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider such representations filed and pass necessary order thereon. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition filed has not dispute d filing of such representations by the petitioners before the Assistant Registr ar of Fisheries Co-operative Societies and in fact are silent about filing of su ch representations. The respondent No.5 in its affidavit-in-opposition has denie d the claim of the petitioners and has contended that it never sold the fishery in favour of the respondent No.6 and all those allegations are false and baseles s and have been made because as they were not successful to get the earlier orde r dated 31st October, 2006 set aside. The respondent No.6 has also denied the a llegation of the petitioners in his affidavit-in-opposition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawing attention of the C ourt to the representations dated 21st October, 2008 and 31st October, 2008 anne xed to the writ petition has submitted that since an allegation has been made by the petitioners relating to sale of the fishery by the respondent No.5 in favou r of the respondent No.6, in violation of the provisions of the Fishery Rules an d the terms and conditions of the settlement, the authorities are bound to look into such allegation and pass necessary order, which has not been done till date . Mrs. Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has su bmitted that those representations were filed before the Assistant Registrar of Fishery Co-operative Societies, who is not the settling authority and, therefore , the petitioners if approaches the settling authority leveling any of the alleg ations of the sale of the fishery by the respondent No.5 in favour of the respon dent No.6, the same shall definitely be looked into and the necessary order in a ccordance with law would be passed. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, on the oth er hand, has submitted that the allegation levelled against it by the petitioner s are all false and baseless and have been levelled only to harass the responden ts as the petitioners were not successful in getting the order of settlement dat ed 31st October, 2006 set aside. It is also the contention of the learned couns el for the respondent No.5 that the signature of the Secretary of the respondent No.5, Society has been forged. The petitioners in the writ petition have claimed that the respondent No.5 after obtaining the settlement of fishery vide order dated 31st October, 2006, sold t he fishing right to the respondent No.6 and they claimed to have filed two repre sentations dated 21st October, 2008 and 31st October, 2008 before the Assistant Registrar of Fishery Co-operative Societies, who, however, is not the settling a uthority. Filing of such representations is not denied by the respondent Nos.1 t o 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 have denied th e allegation made by the petitioners in such representations. Once such an allegation is levelled, the authorities are required to look into s uch allegation and pass necessary order. Since such representations were filed before the Assistant Registrar, who is not the settling authority, the present p etition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the settling authority by way of representation ventilating their grievances relating to the transfer of the fishing right by the respondent No.5 and if such representation is filed before the settling authority, the same shall be considered and dispose d of in accordance with law, with notice to all concerned parties including the settlement holder, within 2 (two) months from the date of making such representa tion. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.