JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Fish Farm Development Association and the Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmer Development Association. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that there is a historical tank under the name and style of Purani Pukhuri (Athai Sagar) in the district of Sivasagar, Assam and that the said tank is used as Fishery Farm (Meen Mahal) for a long time by the Fish Farm Development Association represented by a Chairman who is the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. By an order dated 14.07.2009, the respondent No. 2 allotted the said Purani Pukhari Meen Mahal in favour of the petitioner on annual fee of Rs. 1,56,279/-. However, by subsequent letter dated 18.07.2009, the respondent No. 2 had cancelled the permission given in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the said Purani Pukhuri tank is to be preserved as a historical monument. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the permission accorded to the petitioner to carry on fishery activities in the said Purani Pukhuri tank was cancelled by the impugned order dated 18.07.2009, but instead of taking any steps for preservation of the said Purani Pukhuri tank, the District Administration has allowed the ONGC Ltd. to use the said area for storage of their iron pipes, machineries etc. in a haphazard manner and in order to supplement his submission, the petitioner has relied on the various photographs annexed to this writ petition. It is further submitted that after cancelling the permission accorded to the petitioner to carry out his fishery, large number of persons are illegally carrying on fishing in the said tank and accordingly, the Government is loosing huge revenue which was being generated from the said tank upon lawfully allowing fishery thereon. Therefore, it is submitted that as the Purani Pukhuri tank is in a deplorable condition, the petitioner had filed a representation on 08.11.2011 before the respondents for permission to operate the said tank as fishery and similarly many local people of the said locality had also filed a separate representation before the authorities on 23.03.2012, seeking permission to operate a fishery from the said tank. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner as well as for a direction to settle the fishery in Purani Pukhuri Meen Mahal with the petitioner. 4. The learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the statements made in the affidavit-in opposition and it is submitted that the Fish Farmer's Development Agency was only a custodian of the said Fish Farm and on the basis of representation filed by the petitioner on 24.06.2009, the respondent No. 1 had called for a report from the Fishery Demonstrator of the concerned area as to whether the department could operate the fishery or not and accordingly, the Demonstrator had submitted a report that due to poor infrastructure, it could not be possible to operate the fishery and had suggested to lease out the same. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, steps were taken as per decision taken by the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee (SDLAC) meeting dated 03.05.2008 wherein suggestion was made not to lease out the tank etc. for commercial purpose by taking into account that the said tank is of archaeological importance and the same was a integral part of the glorious reign of Ahom Kingdom and accordingly, the lease of the Purani Pukhuri to the petitioner for fishing was cancelled on the basis of resolution taken by the SDLAC on 03.05.2008. It is further submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition stand has been taken that ONGC Ltd. authorities were asked to remove the pipes and other equipments and Encroachment Proceeding No. 2/2011 was initiated in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer (S), Sivasagar and that the respondent No. 2 had also filed an FIR against the authorities of ONGC Ltd. 5. It is seen that this Court by order dated 24.08.2009 passed in WP(C) 2931/2009 (Dipanka Hazarika Vs. Fish Farmer Development Association, Sivasagar & Anr.), this Court had passed the following orders: "Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge made in this writ petition is the order dated 18.7.09 by which the permission granted to the petitioner on 17.7.09 for fishing in the Purani Pukhuri of Sivasagar district was cancelled. This Court by order dated 22.7.09 while issuing notice of motion, directed to obtain necessary instruction and as an interim measure, suspended the order dated 18.7.09. Mr. The challenge made in this writ petition is the order dated 18.7.09 by which the permission granted to the petitioner on 17.7.09 for fishing in the Purani Pukhuri of Sivasagar district was cancelled. This Court by order dated 22.7.09 while issuing notice of motion, directed to obtain necessary instruction and as an interim measure, suspended the order dated 18.7.09. Mr. AC Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1/the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, submits that the District Level Advisory Committee has taken a decision on 3.5.08, not to settle the fishery or lease out the fishery for fishing purpose to anybody. The relevant paragraph of the extract of the office note is quoted herein below: Purani pukhuri is a historical tank and it is part of glorious reign of Ahom King which dug this tank and built numerous monuments spreading over the district. The general public of Sivasagar along with Ancient Monuments Preservation Committee are expressing resentment over the deplorable condition of the Rudrasagar and Athaisagar (Puranipukhuri) and has requested the District Administration for proper maintenance of the pukhuri and also to undertake developmental and beautification works. This matter was also raised in the Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee meeting held on 3.5.2008 by the Hon'ble MLA Amguri where Hon'ble Minister, H & T, Law etc. Assam Sri Prarab Gogoi was also present. After threadbare discussion the Committee opined that the historical tank should not be utilized for commercial purpose as public sentiment are involved in it. The Committee advised Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar not to lease out the tank for fishing purpose and take necessary action for cancellation of such lease. Deputy Commissioner was also advised not to renew/extend such lease agreement with private parties any further in case of expiry of the current lease period. Relevant copy of the minutes of SDLAC meeting attached herewith. Similarly, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has also filed an application for vacating the interim order on the aforementioned ground. Mr. Sahewalla submits that in view of the decision taken by the District Level Advisory Committee for the purpose of protecting the historical monuments of Purani Pukhuri, he has no objection in vacating the impugned order. Mr. Mr. Sahewalla submits that in view of the decision taken by the District Level Advisory Committee for the purpose of protecting the historical monuments of Purani Pukhuri, he has no objection in vacating the impugned order. Mr. Sahewella further submits that the petitioner apprehends that cancelling the lease of the petitioner, the fishery in question may be settled with some other person, to which the learned counsel for the respondents strictly denied the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, at length and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties including the materials available on record and taking note of the aforesaid decision taken by the Committee to preserve the historical monuments of the Purani Pukhuri, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction that the said historical monument 'Purani Pukhuri' in question shall not be settled with any other person for the purpose of fishing. In the result, this writ petition stands closed. Interim order passed earlier on 22.7.09 stands vacated." 6. In view of the aforesaid order, the authorities are bound by the direction contained therein that the historical monuments of "Purani Pukhuri" shall not be settled with any person for the purpose of fishing. Under such circumstances, in view of the fact that the said order dated 24.08.2009 passed in WP(C) 2931/2009 has attained finality, if any other order is passed in this writ petition, the same would be contradictory to the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2009 and would frustrate the same. 7. Hence, in view of the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) 2931/2009, as settlement of Purani Pukhari is for the purpose of fishing has already been prohibited, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 8. A copy of this order may be provided to Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned Govt. for onwards communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar.