MC 3277/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. VL S inha, learned State counsel appearing for the official respondents and Ms U. Bar uah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The subject matter of the writ petition is the apprehension of settlement of 7 /93 Raidak Fishery under the Dhubri District in favour of the respondent No.3 by the settling authority. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent 3 are the contender for getting settlement of the aforesaid fishery for the period of 20 08-09. Mr. Choudhury, referring to the report of the Deputy Commissioner called for by the settling authority to pass appropriate order of settlement , has submitted that the said report is out and out in correct and not in accordance with the pr ovision of law as directed by the High Court but the settling authority is goin g to settle the said fishery in question in favour of the respondent No.3 on th e basis of the said report. While notice of motion was issued on 12.11.08 in the connected writ petition, i n the interim it was directed that the respondent No.1 is not to settle the fis hery until the returnable date. The respondent No.3 has filed this application f or vacating the said interim order. It is an admitted fact that till now no order of settlement has been passed by t he authority. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Choudhury that the order has been p assed in the file and that may be issued at any point of time. An order or notin g in the connected file cannot be acted upon nor does it confer any right witho ut issuance or publication of such order by the authority. Normally, in settl ing the fishery the authority calls for report from the field officer or from th e Deputy Commissioner/SDO, as the case may be, of the concerned area and after c ollecting the necessary report and facts and upon considering the entire facts and circumstances of a particular case the settling authority settles such fish ery to the eligible person. It is not that such fishery is settled only on the b asis of the report so submitted as indicated above and settlement is made as pe r as per independent consideration of the relevant facts by the settling author ity. In the present case no effective order for settlement of the fishery in question has yet been passed. In such a situation, in my considered opinion th e connected writ petition is premature one. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the direction that the settlin g authority shall settle the fishery in question to the eligible person upon co nsideration of all the relevant facts an circumstances of the case while settlin g the fishery. The authority shall also consider the entire facts holding the f ield. With this direction, this Misc. Case stands disposed of. Earlier interim stands vacated.