JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sarma, the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Govt. advocate appearing for the State respondents No.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.6 and 7. None appears for call for the Cooperation Department of the State or for respondents No.5, 8 and 9. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner is a registered cooperative society comprised of 100% actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Caste community. On 06-04-2013, the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon (i.e. respondent No.3) had issued a certificate as per their record to the effect that the petitioner, namely, M/s. 147 Manipur Fishery Coop. Samabai Samity Ltd. is in the neighbourhood of 162/ 163/ 164 No. Khandajan, Sighali, Gatua Group Min Mahal under Morigaon District and that the said society is composed of 100% actual fishermen and that the aforesaid Min Mahal is situated in the area of operation of the society. On 05-06-2013, the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle (i.e. respondent No.4) had also issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner society is adjacent to 162/ 163/ 164 No. Khandajan, Sighali, Gatua Group Fishery (hereinafter referred to as "the said fishery"). It was also stated therein that the said certificate was issued on the basis of the report submitted by the Supervising Kanungo pursuant to application No. 3069/13 dated 04-06-2013. Around the said time, the petitioner along with 5 others had participated in a NIT dated 26-03-2013, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for settlement of the said fishery, pursuant to which the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department had settled the said fishery to the petitioner for a period of 7 (seven) years vide departmental order dated 21-05-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner had taken over the said fishery. The said settlement order dated 21-05-2018 was challenged before this Court by one of the bidders, namely, M/s. Oujari Malputa Matsyajibi Samabai Samity Ltd., which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 4184/2013. This Court had issued Rule in the said writ petition by order dated 29-07-2013. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, on the basis of a enquiry report submitted without hearing the petitioner by one Md. This Court had issued Rule in the said writ petition by order dated 29-07-2013. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, on the basis of a enquiry report submitted without hearing the petitioner by one Md. Sahnuwar Hussain, the then Senior Inspector/ Auditor of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon (respondent No.5), the respondent No.3 had cancelled the "neighbourhood certificate dated 06-06-2013" by the impugned order dated 27-06-2013. On coming to know about the said order impugned herein, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 28-06-2013 before the respondent No.3 to reconsider his order. Similarly, the respondent No.4 had also cancelled the "neighbourhood certificate" dated 05-06-2013 by the impugned order dated 03-09-2013 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The respondent No.2, by filing his affidavit- in- opposition on 19-12-2013, had taken a stand that on the basis of complaint made by Sri Aswini Biswas, Secretary of M/s. Oujari Malputa Matsyajeevi Samabai Samity Ltd., the Circle Officer, Mayong (respondent No.4) had enquired into the matter and submitted a report stating that the members of the petitioner society are not in the neighbourhood of the said fishery and based on the said report, the respondent No.4 had cancelled the certificate issued on 05-06-2013 on the ground that the members of the petitioner society are inhabitants of Morigaon Town, Aujari Malputa, Mori Eragaon, Moriburagaon and Morihiragaon, which are 14/15 km away from the said fishery. 4. The respondent No.5, by filing his affidavit- in-opposition has taken a stand that the petitioner had refused to accept his notice dated 24-06-2013 issued by him to remain present at three- road crossing (tiniali) of Wakilibari Gaon at 11.00 am on 26-06-2013 for conducting enquiry and they did not attend the enquiry. It has been stated that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner society was about 14/15 km away from the said fishery and accordingly, he had given a report that the shareholders of the petitioner are not the neighbours of the said fishery. 5. The respondents No.6 and 7, who were impleaded vide order dated 06-01-2014, passed in MC 3497/13 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand similar to that of the respondent No.2 was taken, justifying the cancellation of neighbourhood certificate by the respondent No.4 on the basis of enquiry made by the respondent No.4 and 5 respectively. 6. 5. The respondents No.6 and 7, who were impleaded vide order dated 06-01-2014, passed in MC 3497/13 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand similar to that of the respondent No.2 was taken, justifying the cancellation of neighbourhood certificate by the respondent No.4 on the basis of enquiry made by the respondent No.4 and 5 respectively. 6. The respondents No.8 and 9 were impleaded vide order dated 03-03-2017, passed by this Court in I.A.(C) 1827/16, have filed their separate affidavit- in- opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that they are the Gaon Burah of Chota Garjan Village and Lecharibari Village respectively and that they had given their blank signed paper to one Sri Mono Biswas, who had represented that their signature were necessary to support the fact that their fishery were situated in the neighbourhood of the said fishery, which was used by respondent No.5 to create notice to be present for purported spot verification, whereas, no such notice was served on him. It was also stated that they do not know the President/ Secretary of the petitioner society and the respondent No.5 and that they had never met them. 7. Challenging the said two orders passed by the respondents No.3 and 4, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the "neighbourhood certificate" dated 06-04-2013 issued by the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon (Respondent No.3), the said authority had mentioned that the petitioner society is comprised of 100% actual fishermen and that the said fishery is situated in the area of operation of the society. Similarly, it is submitted that in the "neighbourhood certificate" under No. MYC.49/2013/48 dated 05-06-2013, issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle it was certified that the petitioner society was adjacent to the said fishery, further stating therein that the certificate was issued on the basis of report submitted by the Supervising Kanungo. In said connection, it is submitted that the order No. CMF.1/76/207 dated 27-06-2013 by the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon and order No. MYC.49/2013/28 dated 05-06-2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, which had adversely affected the petitioner, resulting in loss of the livelihood of the members of the petitioner society was passed ex parte without any notice to the petitioner and, as such, the said two orders were passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that there is no law in force which has limited any particular distance away from the water-body not to mean and be included in within the definition of "neighbourhood". Hence, it is submitted that the said two authorities having not vested with any power for review under the applicable law, they could not have cancelled the respective "neighbourhood certificates" issued by them. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of (1) Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Limited Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 288 , (2) Brahmaputra Part-II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2003) 1 GauLT 155 , and (3) Gangadhar Fishery Co-op Society Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., WP(C) 904/16 decided on 09-06-2017. 8. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent No.6 and 7 had submitted that the Petitioner society as well its members were not living within the neighbourhood of the said fishery owing to which the two most competent authorities, being the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle as well as the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon had cancelled their respective "neighbourhood certificates" issued in favour of the petitioner. By relying on the case of Mayong Hit Sadhani Fishery Samabai Samiti Vs. State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 977/2014, decided by judgment and order dated 21-02-2014, it is submitted that in the said case, this Court had declined to accept the distance of 5.9 km. to be within the neighbourhood and therefore, as in the impugned order dated 03-09-2013, the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle had mentioned that the members of the said fishery are residing 14/15 km. away from the said fishery, there is no infirmity in the said order and the cancellation of the "neighbourhood certificate" by the said authority as well as the order dated 27-06-2013, passed by Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon was sustainable on facts and in law. 9. It would be relevant to mention herein that at the time of hearing of this matter on 17-01-2019, upon advancing his submissions on merit, the learned advocate for the respondents No.6 and 7 had prayed for an adjournment to meet the legal submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents. 9. It would be relevant to mention herein that at the time of hearing of this matter on 17-01-2019, upon advancing his submissions on merit, the learned advocate for the respondents No.6 and 7 had prayed for an adjournment to meet the legal submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents. However, as the prayer for adjournment was not made before commencement of the argument, this Court by order dated 17-01-2019 had declined adjournment of hearing. 10. In this case in hand, the petitioner was settled with the said fishery by virtue of order under Memo No. FISH.209/2005/637 dated 21-05-2013 passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department. As on the said date, the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Morigaon had issued a certificate dated 06-04-2013 to the effect that the petitioner society is comprised of 100% actual fishermen and that the said fishery was in the area of operation of the society and moreover, on 05-06-2013, the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle had also certified that the petitioner society was adjacent to the said fishery. 11. The same authority i.e. the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Morigaon by an order dated 27-06-2013 had declared that as per enquiry report submitted by Respondent No.5, the petitioner society was not in the neighbourhood of the said fishery and therefore, cancelled the certificate issued by order No. CMF.10/75-76/Part-I/115 dated 06-06-2013. The said impugned order dated 27-06-2013 appears to be mechanical because the document appended as Annexure-II of the writ petition discloses that the said authority had issued the "neighbourhood certificate" under memo No. CMF.18/75-76/Pt-I/25 dated 6th April, 2013 and the said document contains no reference to the order No. CMF.10/75-76/Part-I/115 dated 06-06-2013, which was referred in his order dated 27-06-2013. Moreover, the said order dated 27-06-2013 also does not disclose that either the petitioner was allowed to participate in the enquiry conducted by respondent No.5 or that the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Morigaon had given any opportunity of hearing the petitioner before cancelling the "neighbourhood certificate" granted in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned order dated 03-09-2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle also not disclose that either the petitioner was heard before the Addl. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Morigaon had given any opportunity of hearing the petitioner before cancelling the "neighbourhood certificate" granted in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned order dated 03-09-2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle also not disclose that either the petitioner was heard before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon had heard the petitioner before directing an enquiry to be made as to whether the members of the petitioner society were residing in the neighbourhood of the said fishery or that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the enquiry conducted by the Senior Kanungo of if the Circle Officer had given any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before cancelling the certificate No. MYC.49/2013/48 dated 05-06-2013. 12. In the present case in hand the subject matter does not relate to the issue of settlement of any fishery with the petitioner. Hence, the case citations relied upon by the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents No. 6 and 7 are not squarely applicable under the facts of this case. In the opinion of this Court, the issue required to be determined in this case is whether the order dated 27-06-2013 passed by the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Morigaon (respondent No.3) and the order dated 03-09-2013, passed by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle (respondent No. 4) are sustainable on facts and in law. In this connection, it is seen that the said orders do not disclose that the petitioner was provided with any opportunity of being heard before the previous certificates issued by the said authorities were cancelled. Therefore, the cancelling of the said two certificates dated 06-06-2013 (sic. 06-04-2013) and 05-06-2013 is vitiated by denial of principles of natural justice, as such, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside and quashing the two impugned (i) order No. CMF.1/76/207 dated 27-06-2013 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Morigaon, and (ii) order No. MYC.49/2013/808 dated 03-09-2013, passed by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, Morigaon. 13. Therefore, the point raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner and respondents No.6 and 7 relating to "neighbourhood" of the petitioner with the said fishery as well the point whether the respondents No.3 and 4 had the power to review have not been gone into and those points are left open to be decided in more appropriate case. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No. cost.