D. BISWAS, J.— Question to be answered in this petition is whether the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation have the powers of extension of settlement of a Fishery and, if so, what should be the period of extension. 2. The above question is formulated on the factual background of this case. Respondent No.4 was settled with Shibnarayanpur Annua Fishery of Cachar District for a period of five years in June, 1996. A few months before expiry of the period of settlement, the Respondent No.2 by the impugned letter (Annexure-B) extended the term of Fishery for a period of five years expiring on 31.3.2006. This extension is undoubtedly for a long period. The petitioner Society questioned the propriety, legality and validity of the order of extension on the ground of unreasonableness. 3. In so far the powers of extension is concerned, the decision of this Court in A// S 129 Haria Dublong Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. -Vs- Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited and others 2001(1) GLT 454 (Full Bench) being relevant is quoted below: "17...... 1) .................. 2) .................. 3) .................. 4) As the AFDC has been found to have powers to make settlement in respect of the fisheries vested with them they have implied powers to pass orders regarding extension of the settlement. We may however like to add here that extension of fisheries creates unnecessary problems and as such definite criteria or parameter may be laid down or some alternative may be found out to give relief to the lessee in proper and suitable cases". 4. It would appear from the above decision that the Corporation have implied powers to pass orders regarding extension of the term of settlement, but to avoid unnecessary complications, the Division Bench directed the Corporation to lay down definite criteria or parameter for extension in appropriate and suitable cases. 5. The learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted a copy of the guidelines who do not show anything specific about the extension except that extension would be granted on approval of the Chairperson. This vague and indefinite clause smacks of arbitrariness. Despite direction of the Full Bench, the Corporation appear to have taken the matter in a cavalier manner. 6. 5. The learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted a copy of the guidelines who do not show anything specific about the extension except that extension would be granted on approval of the Chairperson. This vague and indefinite clause smacks of arbitrariness. Despite direction of the Full Bench, the Corporation appear to have taken the matter in a cavalier manner. 6. Rule 8(b) of the Assam Fisheries Rules, 1953 provides for extension of lease in exceptionally special cases for a reasonable period so as to enable the lessee to make good the loss caused due to interference, or act of nature or for unavoidable reason beyond the control of the lessee. The application filed by the lessee for extension is available m file and also the objection petition submitted against it. The application for extension shows that there was three months' delay in delivering the possession of the Fishery and illegal fishing by unauthorized person. There is nothing on record to show that any report was obtained from local authority with regard to alleged illegal fishing. Therefore, to compensate the loss.. sustained due to delay of three months in handing over possession, the Corporation could have extended the period for three months only or at best six months. Extension for five years was panted with the approval of the Chairperson. There is nothing on record to show any sincere effort was made to verify the causes for which the respondent Society sustained loss, if any. Record also do not show any decision in this regard by the Board of Directors. The impugned order of extension is unreasonable for want of adequate reason and hence, liable to be struck down. The extension has been given effect from 1.4.2001. The Respondent Society has already been in possession thereof for about one year and nine months. In the considered opinion of this Court, the period should be restricted to two years in the given facts and circumstances of the case i.e. upto 31.3.2003. 7. The respondent Society shall continue in possession of the Fishery till 31.3.2003. In the meantime, the Corporation shall invite tenders without loss of time and settle the Fishery with the highest bidder in accordance with the provisions of law. This petition, stands disposed of accordingly. 8. 7. The respondent Society shall continue in possession of the Fishery till 31.3.2003. In the meantime, the Corporation shall invite tenders without loss of time and settle the Fishery with the highest bidder in accordance with the provisions of law. This petition, stands disposed of accordingly. 8. Before parting with the record, it may be observed that extension of fishery for reasons mentioned in Rule 8(b) of the Assam Fisheries Rules, 1953 shall not in any case be for a period exceeding one fourth of the period of settlement and all efforts be made to avoid extension except in exceptional cases. This direction should be followed by the Corporation in all future cases till they frame guidelines in conformity with law and principles of natural justice. No costs.