Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 969 (GAU)

Krishna Kanta Haldar v. State of Assam

2017-07-24

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.J. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.B Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent AFDC and also Mr. G.Pegu, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner was settled with 43/44 Pavakata Sondoba Fishery for a period of five years from 2002-2007. It is the case of the petitioner that upon operating the said fishery, the petitioner could find that almost 50% of the fishery had merged with the river Brahmaputra and as such, the petitioner could not conduct any fishing operation in respect of 50% of the fishery. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had earlier preferred two writ petitions before this Court being WP(C) No.1734/2007 and WP(C) No.2148/2007, which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 08.06.2007, wherein the respondent corporation was directed to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of the rules and guidelines. It was specifically provided that the said order should not be construed to be an order to grant remission/extension to the petitioner and that it was merely an order for consideration. 4. Be that as it may, by the order dated 19.07.2017 of the Managing Director of the respondent corporation an extension for a period of one year was granted to the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 up to 31.03.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner operated the fishery in question for the extended period of one year. 5. After operating the fishery for the extended period of one year, the petitioner submitted a further application dated 19.12.2008 for grant of remission, inasmuch as, the petitioner could not operate the whole of the fishery even during the extended period. The petitioner preferred another writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.786/2008, which was disposed of by the order dated 07.03.2008 by providing that the question as to whether the petitioner had paid any excess revenue to the respondent authorities in respect of the fishery in question, shall be settled by the corporation while taking a decision as per reference made by the Managing Director to the Board on 25.07.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 24.03.2008 before the respondent authorities justifying that the petitioner is entitled to certain remission. The petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.1240/2008, which was disposed of by the order dated 04.08.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 24.03.2008 before the respondent authorities justifying that the petitioner is entitled to certain remission. The petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.1240/2008, which was disposed of by the order dated 04.08.2009. In the order dated 04.08.2009, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision with respect of the reduction in revenue as prayed for by the writ petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition has been again preferred by the writ petitioner with a prayer that the prayer of the petitioner for remission of revenue in terms of an earlier letter dated 25.07.2007 and the earlier directions of this Court be duly considered and appropriate order for remission be passed. In the writ petition, a letter dated 10.04.2012 of the Managing Director of the respondent corporation had also been assailed, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay certain arrear revenue amounting to Rs.2,27,356/-. 7. In paragraph-34 of the writ petition, the petitioner takes a stand that although there had been earlier orders of this Court to consider the grant of remission in favour of the petitioner, but without giving any such consideration, the respondent authorities have issued a letter dated 10.04.2012 requiring the petitioner to pay an arrear revenue amounting to Rs.2,27,356/-. 8. The respondent corporation on the other hand has filed an affidavit in opposition dated 05.06.2017, wherein a letter dated 01.08.2008 of the Managing Director addressed to the petitioner had been annexed. As per the said letter, an amount of Rs.1,88,600/- was deducted from the total yearly revenue of Rs.4,95,000/- for the year 2007-08 and Rs.3,06,400/- was re-assessed as the yearly revenue for the year 2007-08. In the view of the respondent authorities, the aforesaid provisions of deducting the amount of Rs.1,88,600/- and re-assessing the revenue for the year 2007-08 at Rs.3,06,400/- was the due consideration of the respondent authorities granting appropriate remission to the petitioner as prayed for. 9. But, it is also noticed that the said letter of 01.08.2008 was prior to the order of this Court dated 04.08.2009. In such view of the matter, the respondent corporation had issued another order dated 12.10.2009, which was passed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.08.2009 in WP(C) No.1240/2008. 9. But, it is also noticed that the said letter of 01.08.2008 was prior to the order of this Court dated 04.08.2009. In such view of the matter, the respondent corporation had issued another order dated 12.10.2009, which was passed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.08.2009 in WP(C) No.1240/2008. In the said order, it had been recorded that as per the earlier letter dated 01.08.2008, the yearly revenue for the year 2007-08 had already been fixed by deducting an amount of Rs.1,88,600/-. Therefore, in view of the respondent authorities, the said decision itself was a compliance of the direction of this Court and therefore, there was no requirement of any further reconsideration. According to the respondent authorities, the aforesaid fact of grant of remission to the petitioner was not placed before this Court and therefore, the earlier order of 04.08.2009 was passed. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner that further consideration be given as regards its prayer for remission. Also in view of the aforesaid finding of this Court that the remission to the petitioner had already been given, therefore the grievance of the petitioner against the order to pay some arrear revenue to the extent of Rs.2,27,356/-, is also found to be unacceptable. 11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that although the petitioner had operated the fishery in question in a truncated manner for five years from 2002-2007 and for another extended year for the year 2007-08, but the remission as contained in the letter dated 01.08.2008 pertains only for the extended year i.e. for the year 2007-08 and it does not take into consideration the remission that the petitioner may be entitled for the earlier period of its truncated operation from 2004-06. 12. In such view of the matter, without interfering with the letter dated 10.04.2012 and also without expressing any view on the remission that has been granted to the petitioner by the letter dated 01.08.2008, the respondent authorities shall give a further consideration to the prayer of the petitioner for grant of remission, if entitled, for the earlier period of 2004-2006. 13. Upon giving a due consideration in the aforesaid manner, the respondent authorities shall take a final decision on the entitlement of the petitioner. 13. Upon giving a due consideration in the aforesaid manner, the respondent authorities shall take a final decision on the entitlement of the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the respondent authorities within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.