WP(C) 6455/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. F. K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also he ard Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State-respon dent No.1 as well as Mr. S. R. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC, appea ring for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Petitioner’s grievance, in short, is that he was favoured with the settlement of 43/44 No. Shunduba-Pabakati Fishery Mahal under Morigaon District from the fina ncial year 2011-12 to 2017-18 at yearly revenue of Rs.19,33,501/- (Rupees ninete en lakhs thirty three thousands five hundred one) only for 7(seven) years in tot al Rs.1,35,34,507/-(Rupees one crore thirty five lakhs thirty four thousands fiv e hundred seven) only. But the fishery area was not handed over to the petitione r on 01.04.2011 instead the same was handed over on 20.07.2011. By the impugned order available at Memorandum No.AFDC.439/2011/3537 dated 09.12. 2011, Annexure-I to the writ petition, the Managing Director of the respondent-C orporation made a demand to pay the revenue of the financial year 2011-12 within seven days from the date of the said letter, otherwise, they would take action as per relevant clause of the agreement, which is available at Agreement dated 0 1.08.2011 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, the impugned order is a veiled one which also inclu des the period from 01.04.2011 to 20.07.2011 when the petitioner was not handed over the possession of the fishery area under reference. Since they had no oppor tunity to fishing during that period, the respondent-Corporation cannot demand o r claim revenue for the aforesaid period. The petitioner had also submitted a re presentation to the respondent-Corporation, which is available at Annexure-G to the writ petition, for giving remission of 112 days in respect of the said fishe ry area being 43/44 No. Shunduba-Pabakati Fishery Mahal under Morigaon District. Though this is not a case of remission but the respondent-Corporation made adjus tment with the prayer by stating in the impugned order dated 09.12.2011 that rev enue for the said period will be exonerated and adjusted with the 4th instalment of the revenue of the fishery. The petitioner being apprehensive of adverse action, basing on this Annexure-I, has filed this writ petition. I have also heard Mr. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, AFDC, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5, who contends that the Corporation has already conside red the matter of adjustment by way of exonerating the revenue from the 4th inst alment, meaning thereby, the instalment that would be payable on the 4th year of the lease term. On consideration of the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporat ion to make adjustment of the revenue of that 112 days spanning from 01.04.2011 to 20.07.2011 in the first instalment by way of giving pro rata deduction from t he settled revenue for the current financial year i.e. 2011-12. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, directed that after deducting the same amount, they shall raise a demand to the petitioner, in their earliest convenie nce, by providing at least one month’s time, for making the payment. The petitio ner shall be bound by that order, otherwise, the respondent-Corporation will be at liberty to take necessary action, as might be taken as per relevant clause of the Agreement dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.