Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. 1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for all the respondents. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the Rangagora Fishermens' Co-operative Society Limited, Guijan, challenging the order dated 10.10.2006 whereby the respondent, State of Assam, refused to allow remission under Section 16 of the Assam Fishery Rules to the petitioner. Dibru Part-II & III fishery was settled with the present petitioner by way of direct settlement under proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules by order dated 07.03.2003 for the period with effect from 01.05.2003 to 30.04.2013 at the Annual Revenue of Rs. 1,21,670/-. Possession of the fishery was given to the petitioner on 31.04.2004 and in view of pendency of the writ petition vide W.P.(C) No. 3053 of 2003, the petitioner could not take over the fishery for a period of 01.05.2003 to 31.01.2004. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 08.01.2004 and thereafter, the fishery was formally handed over to the petitioner on 31.01.2004. By now, the term of settlement of the fishery has already come to an end on 31.04.2013. Since the petitioner could not take over the fishery for the period of 01.05.2003 to 31.01.2004, an application was filed under Rule 16 of the Assam Fishery Rules, praying for remission of fishery revenue on the aforesaid ground. It was the case of the petitioner that they could not take over the fishery during that period and as such there would be serious prejudice to them if they pay for fishery revenue even also they are not in the occupancy of the fishery. The jurisdictional revenue authority by a letter dated 15.07.2005 made a representation to the State Government for passing necessary order of remission, inasmuch as the value of the Annual Revenue being Rs. 1,21,670/-, the remission of this fishery revenue can only be done on the previous sanction of the State Government in view of the provision of Rule 16. The Government after recommendation of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner referred to above ultimately passed order on 10.10.2006 refusing to grant sanction for remission and it is this order, which is brought under challenge in this writ petition. The Government after recommendation of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner referred to above ultimately passed order on 10.10.2006 refusing to grant sanction for remission and it is this order, which is brought under challenge in this writ petition. The order does not show as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioner or whether any opportunity of hearing was accorded before taking the adverse decision against the present petitioner. The said order dated 10.10.2006 does not Contain reason as to why the power of remission would not be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Although, there is no denying of the fact that the petitioner was not in possession of the fishery during the relevant period, prima facie it appears inequitable to the extreme that when a party is not in possession of a fishery for no fault of it and did not get benefit of the fishery for a particular period has been required to pay the revenue for the said fishery by refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested on the authority under Rule 16 of the Assam Fishery Rules. It does not appear as to whether this relevant aspect of the matter received any consideration of the Government at all. 2. In this view of the matter, it is a fit case for exercising the power of judicial review and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 3. The order dated 10.10.2006 which is Annexure-IX to this writ petition is hereby set aside. The Government shall make necessary exercise afresh in this regard keeping in view the ground realities and the plight of the petitioner which is a Co-operative Society of the actual fishermen. No order as to cost.