ORDER
Manisana, J.
1. These two writ petitions, namely, Civil Rule Nos. 1169 of 1992″and 1255 of 1992, are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment as in each of the cases identical question of law has been raised. Civil Rule No. 1169 has been filed by M/s Sanlipur Min Silpa Samabai Samity Limited and Civil Rule No. 1225 of 1992 has been filed by M/s Barchala Fishery Cooperative Society Limited. Shri Dharmeswar Das is the private respondent in both the cases.
2. Facts,– By an order dated 12-11-91, the Government of Assam extended the period of settlement of No. 20 Barchala Fishery at Jorhat with M/s Santipur Min Silpa Samabai Samity Ltd. for three years from 1-11-91 to 31-10-94. But, the Government of Assam under its order dated 2-6-92 cancelled the extension on the ground that the Society had failed to comply with the directions of the Government given in the extension order, and settled the fishery with the respondent Dharmeswar Das for a period of three years. M/s Santipur Min Silpa Samabai Samity Limited has challenged the impugned Order of cancellation of extension as well as the settlement of the fishery with Dharmeswar Das on the ground that the extension order was cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing. The contention of M/s Barchala Fishery Co-operative Society Limited is that they made an application for direct settlement but their case was not considered.
3. Under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, Initial settlement of the registered fisheries must be under tender system of sale in place of auction sale. However, there can be direct settlement of a fishery by the Government with a certain Fishery Co-operative Society described thereunder. A reading of Rule 13(a) and (b) of the Fishery Rules indicates that, with prior approval of the State Government, not more than 60 per cent of the fisheries in a sub-division available for settlement in a year shall be selected for ‘sale under tender system only with the Co-operative Fishery Societies formed with 100 per cent shareholders from members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste of the State and/or Maimal Community of the District of Cachar (which I shall refer to as the ‘SOCIETY’) and the remaining fisheries in the sub-division available in that year under tender system of sale, shall remain open for settlement to all communities including the ‘SOCIETY’. It appears that those fisheries which are available for settlement in that year and selected for settlement with the ‘SOCIETY’ are termed as 60% category and the remaining fisheries are termed as 40%.
4. The impugned order is in the following terms:
“I am directed to say that the Governor of Assam is pleased to revoke the Govt. order issued vide letter No. VFF/95/90/68 D/- 12-11-91 settling the No. 20 Barchala Fishery, Jorhat with M/ s Santipur Min Silpa SS Ltd, by extending lease term from 1-11-91 to 31-10-94 at an annual revenue of Rs.43,261/-(Rupecs Hourly three thousand two hundred sixty one) only since the Society have failed to comply with the direction of the Govt. given in the extension order.
With a view to save Govt. revenue the Governor of Assam is further pleased to convert the fishery into 40% category from that of 60%. and to settle the Fishery with Shri Dharmeswar Das of Vill:— Barwali Dist, : –Jorhat for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of issue of the order at an annual revenue of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Fourty five thousand) only.
Necessary steps may please be taken im-
mediately to issue lease and deliver possession
of the Fishery after completion of all formali’r
ties.”
It appears from the record that the extension order was cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard, thai is to say,–without complying with Hie principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is to be quashed.
5. As regards the conversion of the fishery into 40%’ category from that of 60%, a particular fishery cannot be labelled as 60% or 40% category. It is to be decided under Rule 13. The Government converted the fishery in question into 40% category without considering how many fisheries were available for settlement and of which how many would be selected for settling with the “SOCIETY” in terms with Rule 13. For these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the State Government is directed to reconsider the respective claims of the parties within a period of two months by maintaining status quo of the fishery, it will meet the ends of justice. I do so accordingly.
7. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 2-6-92 is quashed. The State is directed to reconsider the respective claims of the parties after hearing them within a period of two months from today. Till then status quo as regards the possession and enjoyment of the fishery in question as of today shall be maintained. Interim order is merged in the judgment. No costs.