JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society of fishermen having its registered office at Chabua, Dibrugarh, Assam and is interested to take settlement of the fisheries established on the river Brahmaputra by following the due process of law. The Brahmaputra Part-II Fishery was earlier settled with M/s Saikhowa Sadiya Meen Samabay Samiti Limited by an order dated 17.03.2001 for a period of five years. On the expiry of the said period of settlement, the respondent authorities were required to issue a fresh tender inviting bids from the interested societies of fishermen. However, instead of doing so, it appears that by way of a temporary arrangement, the sitting lessee was allowed to operate the said fishery with effect from 01.04.2006. It also appears from the record that the said arrangement has been continuing till date and the respondents have not issued any fresh NIT after the expiry of the earlier settlement granted by order dated 17.03.2001. 3. Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner society had made representation before the respondent No.3 praying for settlement of the fishery as per the provisions of the Rules which was followed by an application dated 09.12.2014 filed by the petitioner society seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, no action has been taken in the matter by the respondents till date as a result of which the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. According to Mr. Banik, the only relief sought for in the present writ petition is for issuance of a direction to the concerned authorities to issue tender notice for settlement of the fishery in question. 4. Although the respondent No.3 had filed an affidavit, yet nothing has been indicated in clear terms as to why no fresh tender notice had been issued for such a long period in respect of the aforementioned fishery. By an order dated 11.01.2017 the learned Government Advocate was directed by this Court to obtain instruction in the matter. Mr. Nath, learned Govt. By an order dated 11.01.2017 the learned Government Advocate was directed by this Court to obtain instruction in the matter. Mr. Nath, learned Govt. Advocate, has produced a copy of the letter dated 25.01.2017 written by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to contend that no specific reason has been cited by the said official for not issuing any NIT till today. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue fresh tender notice for settlement of the Brahmaputra Part-II Fishery after the expiry of the earlier period of settlement granted in favour of M/s Saikhowa Sadiya Meen Samabay Samiti Limited. However, for reasons not discernible on record, the said exercise has not been done till today as a result of which interested bidders such as the writ petitioner has been deprived of taking part in such tender process. 6. That being the position, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the respondents to initiate appropriate steps for putting the fishery in question to sale by issuing tender notice in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Fishery Rules. The said exercise will be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.