MC 3155/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.C. Barbora, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant in Mi sc. Case No. 3206/08. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel who appears for the applicant in Misc. Case No. 3155/08. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel repre sents the writ petitioner/respondent. Ms. H.M. Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate ap pears for the official respondents. The two applicants herein are concerned with certain developments which have tak en place in their respective fishing areas in pursuant to the interim order pass ed by this Court on 22.9.08 in W.P.(C) No. 3061/2008. The dispute between the writ petitioner, who is the settlement holder of Charidu ar Khaloibeel Meen Mahal and the respondent No.6, who is the settlement holder o f Nabeel Pathar Pichola Fishery, is over the respective boundary of their said fisheries. The respondent No.7 Barchalla Unnayan Committee was permitted to fish in their m yadi land in Goroimari Pathar (adjacent areas of the said two fisheries) This Court by the interim order dated 22.9.08 after referring to the boundary of the two fisheries as given in the report dated 24.7.03 ordered that the writ pe titioner as well as the respondent No. 6 will confine their fishery operations w ithin their respectively settled areas of fishery, having regard to the boundary in the joint verification report dated 24.7.03. It was never intended by this Court while passing the said interim order that th e respondent No. 6 would be dispossessed from his fishery or would not be permit ted to fish within the fishery settled with him, particularly if the said area i s within his area of operation as per the verification report dated 24.7.03. It was also not intended by the interim order passed by this Court on 22.9.08 th at any stop fishing order would be issued to respondent No.7, as has been ordere d by the Deputy Commissioner on 23.9.08. The stop fishing order dated 23.9.08 ca nnot, therefore, be supported on the basis of the interim order passed by this C ourt on 22.9.08. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it must be made clear that the interim ord er passed by this Court on 22.9.08 in W.P.(C) No. 3061/08 filed by Chariduar Bra hmaputra Aru Khaloibeel Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. should not be understo od to mean that respondent No. 6 or respondent No. 7 would be prevented from fis hing. It is clarified accordingly. While passing the interim order, this Court intended that the fishing operation by the writ petitioner and the private respondents would be confined to their re spective areas and will not transgress into the other’s area of settlement. This Court also specified that the respective area is to be understood by having due regard to the boundary, specified in the joint verification report dated 24.7.0 3 of the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur was made responsible to ensure that the parties maintain their boundaries as per the repo rt dated 24.7.03.This then was the intent of the Court and no other action can b e supported with regard to the respective fishing activities of the parties on t he strength of the interim order dated 22.9.08. The above clarification would dispose of the Misc. Case No. 3206/08 and Misc. Ca se No. 3155/08.