Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 240 (GAU)

Dibakar Hazarika v. State of Assam

2003-06-02

AFTAB H.SAIKIA

body2003
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Since all these 3(three) writ petitions carry common question of law based on almost identical question of facts, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In W.P.(C). No. 7671/2002, the Petitioner, Sri Dibakar Hazarika, (for short "Sri Hazarika) has sought for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the impugned W.T. message dated 28.11.02 and order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexures 'K' and 'L' to the writ Petition) by which the Petitioner is directed to stop fishing in the No. 40 Sela Charikaria Fishery (for short, "the fishery in question) which has been duly settled with him vide order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure 'F' to the writ petition) and also for a writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents from interfering with the operation of the fishery in question. 3. M/s. Sela Charikaria Fishery Cooperative Society, the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7686/2002, (for short 'the Sela Society') has challenged the impugned order of settlement dated 25.11.2002 by which the fishery in question has been settled with the Respondent No. 6 (Mr. Hazarika in the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7671/2002). 4. As regards W.P.(C). No. 5950/2002, the writ Petitioner, M/s. Merbil Fishery Cooperative Society Ltd. (for short, the Merbil Society) therein, on the other hand has assailed the impugned order dated 13.9.2002 by which the Government directed the competent authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur, in settle the fishery in question in favour of the Respondent No. 5 (the Sela Society the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 7686/2002). 5. The facts briefly, as has been emerged from a bare perusal of the pleadings of the rival parties in all these writ petitions, are that initially the fishery in question was under the management of the Assam Fishery Development Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') which settled the fishery in question with Sri Hazarika, the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 7671/2002, for a period of three year till 31.3.2002. While the fishery in question had been enjoyed by said Hazarika, the Govt. withdrew the same from the Corporation for its settlement by the Government itself. Being the sitting lessee of the fishery in question under the Corporation and feeling aggrieved by the said withdrawal from the Corporation by the Government, the said Sri Hazarika approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). withdrew the same from the Corporation for its settlement by the Government itself. Being the sitting lessee of the fishery in question under the Corporation and feeling aggrieved by the said withdrawal from the Corporation by the Government, the said Sri Hazarika approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 1708/2002 and this Court by order dated 13.3.2002 granted interim relief to him by suspending the proposed withdrawal of the fishery in question by the Government from the Corporation. The Sela Society moved a Misc. application being Misc. Case No. 488/02 for modification/vacation of ex parte interim order passed on 13.3.2002 and this Court by order dated 17.6.2002 disposed of the said Misc. case by vacating the interim order with the observation that the settlement of the fishery in question should be done only by tender process by making public advertisement calling the intending individuals and societies being eligible for such settlement. In consequence thereof, the competent authority floated NIT on 16.7.2002 for the settlement of the fishery in question. Pursuant to such NIT, all the Petitioners in these writ petitions, participated along with 9(nine) Ors. therein by offering their respective bid and after opening the tenders, the authority prepared a comparative statement showing the respective position of the tenderers. Considering the bid money offered Sri Hazarika who was initially placed at 5th position was found to be the highest bidder as 4 other highest bidders of his top had withdrawn from the tender process. Accordingly as per bid, the Merbil Society posted at 2nd position whereas the Sela Society found itself in 3rd position. The final respective position of the writ-Petitioners in the comparative list may be noted as under: Sl. No. Name of the Petitioners Bid money offered 1. Sri Dibakar Hazarika 10,00,111/- 2. M/s. Merbil Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. 9,32,641/- 3. Sela Charikaria Fisheries Co-operative Societies 1,71,351/- 6. Admittedly both the Petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 5950/2002 and W.P.(C). No. 7686/2002 are co-operative societies. No. Name of the Petitioners Bid money offered 1. Sri Dibakar Hazarika 10,00,111/- 2. M/s. Merbil Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. 9,32,641/- 3. Sela Charikaria Fisheries Co-operative Societies 1,71,351/- 6. Admittedly both the Petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 5950/2002 and W.P.(C). No. 7686/2002 are co-operative societies. As has been mentioned hereinabove, the settlement period of the fishery in question initially settled with Sri Hazarika expired on 31.3.2002 but after the expiry of the settlement period, as no settlement could be made immediately due to the initiation of the settlement of the fishery in question by the tender process, the Sela Society was given temporary settlement of the same vide order dated 29.6.2002 and the possession of the fishery in question was also delivered to the Sela Society on 1.7.2002 and 2.7.2002. While the Sela Society was running the fishery in question, the Govt. by order dated 13.9.2002 directed the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur, to settle the fishery in question with Sela Society itself for a period of 5(years) in terms of the bid value offered by the said Society. Being aggrieved by the said direction for settlement of the fishery in question with the Sela Society, Sri Hazarika moved this Court for the second time through W.P.(C). No. 5937/2002 and this Court by order dated 17.9.2002, at the time of f issuance of notice of motion, in the interim, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) Dhakuakana not to act upon the tender dated 13.9.2002 until further orders and the fishery in question be settled only with the highest valid tenderer in accordance with the provision of law. This order dated 17.9.2002 was assailed by the Sela Society before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 713/2002 and the writ appellate court by order dated 31.1.2003 disposed of the appeal as well as the related W.P.(C) No. 5937/02 observing that the expression "fishery in question be settled only with the highest valid tenderer" was controlled with the direction in accordance with the provisions of law. It was also observed therein that the learned Single Judge while passing the order had expressed that the fishery right normally had to be settled with the highest bidder. 7. It was also observed therein that the learned Single Judge while passing the order had expressed that the fishery right normally had to be settled with the highest bidder. 7. On the other hand, despite the interim order of stay passed on 17.9.02 against the letter dated 13.9.03 referred above, the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) Dhakuakhana settled the fishery right with the Sela Society on 19.9.2002 in pursuance of the order dated 11.9.2002 for 5 (five) years with effect from 13.9.2002 to 12.9.07. But thereafter coming to know about the interim order, passed on 17.9.2002, the competent authority cancelled the fishery right with Sela Society on 25.11.02 and settled the fishery in question with Sri Hazarika and possession of the same was given to him vide order dated 28.11.2002 and since then Sri Hazarika has been in possession of the fishery in question. 8. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Choudhury and Mr. K.P. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Das, and Mr. N.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Bujarbaruah, learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties. Also heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned state counsel appearing for the State/Respondents. 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7671 /02, has contended that the NIT was floated by the Govt. for settlement of the fishery in question in terms of the observation made by this Court on 11.6.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 433/02, arising out of W.P.(C). No. 1708/02 and the writ Petitioner, Sri Hazarika has participated in the said tender process and he is found to be the highest bidder with his bid money of Rs. 10,00,111/- and accordingly he has a right for consideration of the settlement of the fishery in question and the authority, without considering his case, directed the competent authority vide order dated 13.9.2002 for settlement of the same with the Sela Society. But when he approached this Court challenging the said order dated 13.9.2002, this Court specifically directed that the settlement shall be made with the highest tenderer in accordance with law. Thereafter, the authority, instead of settling the fishery right with him, settled the same with the Sela Society on 19.9.2002 and that too, in violation of the interim order passed on 17.9.2002 which was not vacated by the Division Bench as already mentioned above. Thereafter, the authority, instead of settling the fishery right with him, settled the same with the Sela Society on 19.9.2002 and that too, in violation of the interim order passed on 17.9.2002 which was not vacated by the Division Bench as already mentioned above. It is contended that after much persuasion, Sri Hazarika, has got the settlement of the fishery in question vide order dated 25.11.2002 which has been challenged by the Sela Society in W.P.(C) No. 7686/02. According to Mr. Choudhury, after such settlement, now the competent authority has been trying to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of his fishery right at the behest of the Respondent No. 5, the Fishery Minister and as a result of such interference, the impugned W.T. Message dated 28.11.2002 and dated 29.11.02 have been issued directing Sri Hazarika to stop fishing in the fishery in question, it is also urged by him that so far as the settlement of fishery in question with the Sela Society is concerned, the direction for settlement of same by letter dated 13.9.02 as well as subsequent settlement with the said society by the settlement order dated 19.9.02 are palpably illegal and bad in law inasmuch as the authority has no power or jurisdiction to settle the fishery with the Sela Society having admittedly been found it to be the lower bidder. It is also his case that Govt. is not the competent authority to issue such direction dated 13.9.02 to the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) who is the only competent authority to settle the fishery in question as per provision of law laid down in Rule 8 of the Assam Fishery Rules, (hereinafter called as "the Rules"). 10. Mr. K.P. Sarma, Sr. Counsel appearing for the Sela Society in W.P.(C) No. 7686/02, has forcefully contended that the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 cancelling the Petitioner's earlier Settlement order dated 19.9.2002 is highly illegal and improper and contrary to the concept of natural justice inasmuch as much as the impugned order was passed without giving any notice or affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ Petitioner. His further contention is that the impugned order appears to have been passed in compliance of the High Court's order dated 17.9.2002 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 5937/02 when the said order did not speak of any such direction to settle the fishery in question in favour of Sri Hazarika. His further contention is that the impugned order appears to have been passed in compliance of the High Court's order dated 17.9.2002 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 5937/02 when the said order did not speak of any such direction to settle the fishery in question in favour of Sri Hazarika. The said order simply said that in the meantime, the Respondent authority particularly the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) Dhakuakhana was directed not to act upon the letter dated 13th September, 2002 until further orders and the fishery in question be settled only with the highest valid tenderer in accordance with the provision of law. But the competent authority, instead of settling the fishery in question in accordance with law, has settled the same in favour of Sri Hazarika on being influenced by certain extraneous consideration. Moreover, the settlement of the fishery right has been given to Sri Hazarika for a period of five years with effect from 26.11.2002 which is contrary to the NIT wherein the period has been fixed only for 3(three) years and hence this impugned order observes interference. 11. Next submission of Mr. Sarma is that the Sela Society is a Co-operative Society and the fishery in question having fallen under the 60% category of fisheries earmarked for Co-operative Societies as envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rules was rightly settled with the Sela Society in accordance with the provisions of the said Rule to the exclusion of Sri Hazarika who is an individual having no locus standi to participate in terms of the NIT for settlement of the fishery in question being reserved for Co-operative societies. 12. In order to substantiate his argument on the point of principle of natural justice, Mr. Sarma has relied on two decisions of this Court reported in (1985) 1 GLR 516 (Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Assam and Ors.) and (1988) 1 GLR 12 (M/S Somdiri Bhogmonchuk Fishery Co-operative Societies Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Assam). 13. 12. In order to substantiate his argument on the point of principle of natural justice, Mr. Sarma has relied on two decisions of this Court reported in (1985) 1 GLR 516 (Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Assam and Ors.) and (1988) 1 GLR 12 (M/S Somdiri Bhogmonchuk Fishery Co-operative Societies Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Assam). 13. Be it mentioned herein that during the course of hearing earlier on 10.4.2003 on consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court felt it necessary to request the learned Advocate General, Assam to address the points formulated by this Court as under: (i) The scope of Rule 13 of the Assam Fishery Rules by which the fisheries are categorized in two categories namely 60% and 40% for settlement of the same to the Co-operative society and individual respectively. (ii) Validity and legality of such categorization while making settlement of the fishery in question keeping the public interest in view. 14. Accordingly, I have also heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Advocate General, Assam who has appeared on such request of the Court. It is submitted by him that the validity and legality of Rule 13 of the Rules has already been settled by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1973 260 (Kanta Khanikar, Secretary, Subansiri Min Silpa Samaba Samity Ltd. v. The Assam Board of Revenue and Ors.). In the said judicial decision, referring to Rule 13(a), it was held that having regard to interests of the actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes with reference to their means of livelihood and occupation, a rule is made for protecting their interest from competition and machinations of other people and hence such rule cannot be violative of Article15(1) of the Constitution in view of the provision of Clause (4) of that Article and it is permissible for the State Govt. in view of the provision of Article 15(4) to make a reservation of not more than 60% of fisheries in a Sub-Division available for settlement in a year in favour of Co-operative fishery societies formed with 100% share holders from members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled castes. That being the settled position, the question has come up now as to how the fisheries are to be categorized into 60% and 40% for settlement, Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. That being the settled position, the question has come up now as to how the fisheries are to be categorized into 60% and 40% for settlement, Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel has referred to Rule 2 of the Rules which provides for maintenance of Registrar of Fisheries by each District and Sub-Divisional Officer and that Fishery Registrar shall indicate such categorization of the fisheries into 60% and 40%. Mr. Thakur, learned State Counsel has produced the records as called for including the registrar maintained Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Dhakuakhana. It is seen that the said register so produced by Mr. Thakur, does not reflect such categorization of the fisheries into 60% and 40%. So far as the fishery in question is concerned, record only shows that under the head 'Reserved for SC.', it is shown only a "60%". This question mark seemingly casts doubt about the 60% status of the fishery. Besides that, nowhere in the registrar there has been any mention or categorization of such 60% and 40% as envisaged under Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules. That being the position, this Court is of the considered view that the fishery in question is not reserved for the cooperative societies to come under 60% category fisheries and as such the sale of this fishery right is open for all including the individual. Therefore the submission of Mr. Sarma that the fishery in question has been reserved for Co-operative society cannot be accepted. 15. Remonstrating the submission of Mr. Sarma as regards applicability of the principle of natural justice in cancellation of the earlier settlement of the fishery in question with the Sela Society vide order dated 25.11.2002, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel has emphatically submitted that taking into account the factual position of the case at hand, the principle of natural justice cannot be applied in the instant case. According to him, the original settlement vide order dated 19.9.2002 in favour of the Sela Society itself was void ab initio inasmuch as the said settlement was made as per direction of the Govt. vide letter dated 13.9.2002 issued to the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil) Dhakuakhana when no power of settlement has been entrusted upon the Govt. and the competent authority, under the law is only the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer. vide letter dated 13.9.2002 issued to the Sub-divisional Officer (Civil) Dhakuakhana when no power of settlement has been entrusted upon the Govt. and the competent authority, under the law is only the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer. Now if the present settlement of the fishery in question with Sri Hazarika vide order dated 25.11.2002 is interfered with and quashed, it would amount to restoration of an illegal order passed earlier on 19.9.2002 and such action need not be encouraged by this Court. To bolster up this point. Mr. Choudhury has relied on a case reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 (Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan). The Apex Court dealing with the applicability of the concept of natural justice therein ruled that non-compliance with the principles of natural justice unless causing prejudice, does not automatically entitle one to relief under Article 226. Mr. Choudhury has further contended that being aggrieved by order dated 13.9.2002 by which the Govt. directed the competent authority to settle the fishery in question in favour of the Sela Society, Sri Hazarika, challenged the same before the Court which on being satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of Sri Hazarika to the effect that the Government not being the competent authority has no power to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil) to effect the settlement in favour of the Sela Society, on i 17.9.02 directed, in the interim order, that Respondent-authority particularly the Sub- Divisional Officer(Civil) Dhakuakhana, not to act upon the letter dated 13.9.2002 as noticed above until further orders and fishery in question be settled only with the highest valid tenderer in accordance with the provision of law and accordingly Sri Hazarika having been found to be the highest bidder, the competent authority has legally settled with the same him in accordance with law, meaning thereby in terms of Rule 13(b) of the Rules. Hence, there is no illegality committed in settling the fishery in question with Sri Hazarika warranting interference by this Court, His further contention is that the fishery in question is not a reserved fishery under 60% category of fisheries as provided under Rule 13(a) and as such the same is open for sale to all communities including individual. 16. For the sake of convenience let us take a look on the provisions of Section Rule 13 which may be read as under: 13. 16. For the sake of convenience let us take a look on the provisions of Section Rule 13 which may be read as under: 13. Settlement of Fisheries with Co-operative Societies- (a) With the prior approval of the State Government not more than 60 percent of fisheries in a Sub-Division available for settlement in a year shall be selected for sale under tender system duly with the Co-operative Fishery Societies formed with 100% percent share holders from member of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste of the State and/or Maimal Community of the District of Cachar and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949. Settlement of all such fisheries tenders of which have been accepted under Rule 5 shall be with the highest tender. (b) 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 Co-operative Societies as referred to in Sub-Rule (a) above. (c) A Co-operative Fishery Society formed by members of actual fisherman belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Maimal Community/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, shall be given option to accept settlement of Fisheries of the category as mentioned in Sub-Rule (b) above at the highest tender, provided that their tender is within 71/2 percent of the highest tender. (d) When the tenders for fisheries falling within the category referred to in Sub-Rule (b) above are below 71/2 percent of the highest tender (i) Co-operative Societies as stated in Sub-Rule (c) above ii) Individual members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes and other Backward Classes who may offer tenders not less than 60 percent of the highest tender, may be given option to take settlement of the fishery at the highest bid, in order of preference stated above subject to suitability of the tenderer. (e) When a fishery referred to Sub-Rule (b) above fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. 50,000 per annum is settled with any individual member from actual fisherman belonging the Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes/Maimal community or Other Backward Classes the tender shall be a rebate of 71/2 percent as concession. But when a fishery fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. (e) When a fishery referred to Sub-Rule (b) above fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. 50,000 per annum is settled with any individual member from actual fisherman belonging the Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes/Maimal community or Other Backward Classes the tender shall be a rebate of 71/2 percent as concession. But when a fishery fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. One Lakh (Rupees One Lakh) per annum is settled with any Fishery Co-operative Society formed by members from communities as stated above, the tenderer society shall get a rebate of ten percent as concession. Provided that 100 percent rebate as aforesaid shall not be available to Fishery Co-operative Societies formed with 100 percent shareholders form actual Fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the State and Maimal Community of the District of Cachar if the accept settlement of Fisheries as stated in Sub-Rule (a) above. Provided further that such rebate shall not be admissible in case any individual or Fishery Co-operative Society of any protected community offers the highest tender. (f) Any tenderer claiming the concession provided this rule shall indicate the same in his tender. 17. Arguing on his next limb of submission, Mr. Sarma has contended that the settlement in favour of Sri Hazarika cannot be sustained because he failed to comply with the conditions so stated in the NIT. The said Hazarika failed to deposit/furnish the certificates of Income Tax Clearance, Sales Tax Clearance. Baijai Loan Clearance as well as actual fisherman certificate and the same being the essential conditions for consideration of the NIT, non submission of those documents clearly vitiates the tender submitted by him. It is also submitted by Mr. Sarma that Sri Hazarika was earlier found to be defaulter and to support this point Mr. Sarma has relied on enclosures annexed as Annexure-K to his additional affidavit filed in his related writ petition. The Annexure-K is a communication dated 9.12.02 made by the Deputy Secretary, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. to the Joint Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department stating that Dibakar Hazarika is defaulter to the tune of Rs. 4,601/- during the extended period i.e. from 1.9.01 to 31.3.02. It appears that the period mentioned therein was the period when the fishery was under the Corporation. It is also seen from the documents submitted by the learned Counsel for Sri Hazarika that the said amount was already paid on 16.12.02. 4,601/- during the extended period i.e. from 1.9.01 to 31.3.02. It appears that the period mentioned therein was the period when the fishery was under the Corporation. It is also seen from the documents submitted by the learned Counsel for Sri Hazarika that the said amount was already paid on 16.12.02. Since the fishery in question was withdrawn from the Corporation and now has been sold by the competent authority under the Govt. the question of defaulter, as alleged, does not arise at this stage. More so, the defaulted amount has, already been paid by Sri Hazarika. The document dated 16.12.02 so produced by the learned Counsel for Sri Hazarika be kept them in form the part of the records. 18. I have considered the submissions so advanced on behalf of the rival parties at length and also meticulously scrutinized the material available on record including the rival pleadings of the parties. It appears that the fishery in question is not under 60% category of fisheries to attract the benefit of settlement of the same in favour of the Sela Society. The fishery in question is admittedly open for settlement to all the parties including individual. Sri Hazarika having participated in the NIT in his individual capacity has every right for consideration, of the settlement of the same and accordingly he having been found to be the highest bidder, has been settled with fishery in question by the impugned order. It is the requirement of law that the settlement shall be made to the highest tenderer. It also appears that initial settlement made in favour of the Sela Society by order dated 13.9.03 was unauthorised and illegal having been passed by the authority not being competent to do so. i.e. Govt. because the Govt. has no power to make any settlement in view of Rule 8 which specifically mentions that the competent authority authorised to make settlement is only the Deputy Commissioner for the District and the Sub-Divisional officer in the Sub-Division. That being the legal position, the settlement order having been passed by an authority other than the competent authority cannot have any leg to stand. As such if the impugned order is interfered with at this stage, it will amount to approve an illegal order passed by the authority as reflected in the order dated 13.9.02. 19. That being the legal position, the settlement order having been passed by an authority other than the competent authority cannot have any leg to stand. As such if the impugned order is interfered with at this stage, it will amount to approve an illegal order passed by the authority as reflected in the order dated 13.9.02. 19. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court does not find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Sela Society and accordingly the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7686/02 is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. On the other hand, the writ petition in W.P.(C) 7671/02 is hereby allowed and the settlement so made by the impugned order dated 25.11.02 in favour of Sri Hazarika is affirmed. However considering the period of settlement for 5 years, it is made clear that since the NIT was floated stating the period of settlement as 3 years, the authority has no power to make the settlement for a period of 5 (years). That being so, the settlement so made in favour of Sri Hazarika in W.P.(C) No. 7671/ 02 is directed to be limited for a period of 3 years in terms of NIT which shall run with effect from 20.11.02 for a period of 3 years i.e. upto 25.11.05. 20. In so far the W.P.(C) No. 5950/02 is concerned, it appears that in the said writ petition, the Merbil Society has challenged only the order dated 13.9.02 as already referred to hereinabove, without assailing the subsequent settlement order dated 29.11.02 and the said position has also been accepted fairly by Mr. N.C. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Merbil Society. That being so this writ petition is also devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. 21. For the reasons and observation as indicated above, this bunch of Writ petitions are disposed without any costs. Return back the records so produced by the learned Govt. counsel forthwith. Petition disposed of.