WP(C) 4523/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The writ petitioner, which is a registered society of fisheries, was the lessee of Sessa Nadi Fishery, which falls in the District of Dibrugarh. By ord er, dated 11.10.1999, the said fishery had been settled with the petitioner for a period of seven years. On the application, for extension of the term of settl ement, made by the petitioner, as lessee of the said fishery, an extension of th e term of the settlement was granted by the government to the petitioner, with e ffect from 10.10.2006, on the ground that the lessee had incurred huge loss duri ng the period of settlement due to natural calamities. This extension was to ex pire on 09.10.2009. The writ petitioner, as lessee, applied for further extensi on of the term of settlement for a period of five years on the ground that the p etitioner had incurred huge loss due to flood, etc. This application for extens ion has, however, been turned down by the authority concerned, by order, dated 0 9.10.2009, on the ground that no justifiable reason has been assigned by the pet itioner for seeking further extension of the period of settlement. Before takin g this decision, however, the respondent No. 1 herein, although called for a rep ort from the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, in this regard, it (respondent No. 1) does not seem to have waited for the report, to be submitted by the Deputy Co mmissioner, Dibrugarh, and has, thus, passed the impugned order without taking i nto consideration a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, as was requi red under the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (in short, ’the Rules’). Aggrieved by t he decision, so taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order, dated 09.10.2009, aforementioned. 2. Another important aspect related to the impugned order is that, following th e order of rejection, passed on 09.10.2009, aforementioned, the respondents/auth orities concerned have, in the meanwhile, floated a tender notice, on 22.10.2009 , for making settlement of the said fishery. Though an application, seeking sta y of the tender process, was filed by the petitioner, no interim order appears t o have been passed, in this regard, by this Court. However, the respondent No. 4 also has, in the meanwhile, got himself impleaded, as party-respondent, in thi s writ petition, claims that he has stood as the highest bidder in the tender pr ocess, which commenced on 22.10.2009, for settlement of the fishery, in question . 3. In the above backdrop of the facts, this writ petition has been taken up , as sought for on behalf of the parties, for the purpose of final disposal. 4. I have heard Mr. N. C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of th e State respondent No. 1, 2, and 3. I have heard also Mr. D. K. Das, learned co unsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 5. The submission, made by Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel, is short and pr ecise. Mr. Das points out that under the Rules, the Government is required to d ecide application for extension of the period of settlement of a fishery on the basis of the reports, which may be submitted by the authorities concerned in ter ms of Rule 8(b) of the Rules inasmuch as Clause (b) of Rule 8 of the Rules clear ly lays down that the Government may, in exceptionally special cases, extend the period of lease for a reasonable period, so as to enable a lessee make good the loss, if such request for extension is supported by official reports as to the nature of the cause. In the present case, contends Mr. Das, the report, which t he Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, was required to submit and considered by resp ondent No. 1, has not been taken into account at the time of passing the impugne d order. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the report of the Deputy Com missioner, Dibrugarh, though ordered to submit to the Government, was not receiv ed by the Government and was not considered by the Government before, or at the time of, passing the impugned order. Without expressing any definite opinion, a s regards the correctness of the submissions, made by Mr. Das, that no order of extension can be passed by the Government under Rule 8 without obtaining, or con sidering, if already submitted, report(s) from the Deputy Commissioner of the di strict concerned, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circ umstances of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice if respond ent No. 1 is directed to obtain and consider the report, required to be submitte d by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, on the petitioner’s said application, a nd determine if the application, seeking extension of the term of settlement, be ars any justifiable ground, and it is, upon consideration of the report, that th e respondent No. 1 shall take it’s decision on the petitioner’s said representat ion. Until the time a decision, as required under the law, is taken by the resp ondents concerned on the petitioner’s said representation, no settlement order, in respect of the said fishery, shall be made by the respondent No. 1 or by any other respondent/authority concerned so that multiplicity of proceedings can be avoided. 7. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest o f justice, it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 1 shall take into accou nt, apart from other material facts, the report, which is required to be submitt ed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, and, then, pass appropriate order(s) i n accordance with law. If the respondent No. 1 decides to reject the writ petit ioner’s said representation, there shall be no impediment in making such an orde r, if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify. If the writ petitione r’s said representation is rejected, necessary action, in terms of law, as regar ds the tender process, which was initiated by tender notice, dated 22.10.2009, s hall be resorted to. The respondent No. 1 shall pass necessary order(s) on the petitioner’s said representation within a period not more than one month from th e date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent No. 1. The petit ioner and/or the respondent No. 4 may furnish a certified copy of this order to the respondent No. 1. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. 9. No order as to costs.