WP(C) 3996/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr . G. Soren, learned State Counsel for the respondents. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessentia l to issue formal notice. The pleaded case of the petitioner society is that it has been s ettled with the Dibru River Part-I Fishery (for short hereafter referred to as t he Fishery) for a period of five years with effect from 8/9/2003 to 19/9/2008. S eeking extension of the said term, the petitioner society on 13/2/2008 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, narrating the grounds in s upport thereof. It also followed it up with representations dated 25/9/2008/26/9 /2008 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia and Commissioner, Uppe r Assam Division, Jorhat, for expediting the process. As no decision was forthco ming, it also submitted an application on 20/4/2009 before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Fisheries, Dispur, reiterati ng its request for extension. Eventually the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, subm itted a report on 10/10/2009 recommending renewal/extension of the lease/term of the petitioner’s society beyond 19/9/2008. By the impugned order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, the petitioner’s representation dated 25/9/2008/26/9/2008 submitted before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, has been disposed of primarily on the consideration that the issue be aring on extension of the petitioner’s term is lying with the concerned authorit y of the Government. The order, however, in clear terms records the recommendati on for such extension made by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia vide his letter dated 10/10/2009 as aforementioned. Mr. Goswami submits that as the likely purport of the impugned o rder is that the petitioner society, pending final decision by the appropriate a dministrative authority of the Government, on its request for extension may not be permitted to operate the fishery involved, necessary orders need be passed to protect its interest in the interregnum. Mr. Soren, learned State Counsel submits that as the matter is n ow at the disposal of the Government, there is no reason why a decision would no t be taken in connection therewith. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleaded facts and the documents annexed, this Court is of the vie w that it would be in the ends of justice to dispose of the instant proceeding w ith a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fi sheries Department, to take a decision on the issue of renewal/extension of the lease of the fishery hitherto settled with the petitioner society at the earlies t on the basis of the contemporaneous records and in particular the recommendati on to that effect forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, vide his lette r dated 10/10/2009. Ordered accordingly. The process as ordered should be comple ted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of t his order. Having regard to the background of facts, it is provided that till a decision is taken by the aforementioned authority, the petitioner society would be permitted to operate the fishery namely Dibru River Part-I Fishery. No costs.