JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fishery Development Corporation Limited, appearing for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By this intra-Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the common order dated 10.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 504/2018 as well as W.P.(C) No. 617/2018, both instituted by the present appellant. 3. Pursuant to a Tender Notice No. 3/2014 issued by respondent No. 1 inviting tenders for, amongst others, Tamranga Beel-Konora Group Fishery for a period of 7 years with effect from the financial year 2014-15, the appellant had participated in the tender process and subsequently was awarded settlement of the same at his quoted rate of annual revenue of Rs. 77,77,777/-. Subsequent thereto, an agreement was executed by the appellant with respondent No. 1 on 30.8.2014 wherein, amongst others, the manner of deposit of revenue was indicated. A notice dated 22.12.2017 was issued asking the appellant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,23,21,676/- within 31.12.2017 indicating that on failure to pay the said amount the settlement would be cancelled. Prior to issuance of the aforesaid notice, the appellant on 14.12.2017 had submitted a representation for re-fixation of the annual revenue in respect of the fishery in question primarily on the ground that the area of the fishery had been reduced considerably, as a result of which, fishing activity came to be restricted to about 408 Hectares approximately. Again on 20.12.2017, the appellant submitted representation to respondent No. 1 praying for extension of time upto 30.1.2018 for depositing revenue/installment. Along with the said prayer, the appellant also made a request for re-fixation of annual revenue. 4. No response having been forthcoming from the authorities, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 3.1.2018 directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 14.12.2017 and to dispose of the same by a speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No. 1, after hearing the appellant, passed an order dated 25.1.2018 holding that the appellant is not entitled to refixation of yearly revenue for running the fishery in question. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No. 1, after hearing the appellant, passed an order dated 25.1.2018 holding that the appellant is not entitled to refixation of yearly revenue for running the fishery in question. Holding so, the settlement made in favour of the appellant was cancelled and the possession of the fishery was taken back. While passing the aforesaid order, respondent No. 1 noted that in view of the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 8.3.2017, revenue cannot be adjusted/reviewed/reassessed and that the appellant had submitted his tender having satisfied himself with the earning potential of the fishery. This was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No. 504/2018. After the said order dated 25.1.2018 was passed, a fresh tender notice was issued on 6.2.2018 for settlement of the fishery and, at the same time, temporary settlement on daily basis was made in favour of one Nilopam Das till 31.3.2018. The said tender notice as well as the order of settlement in favour of Nilopam Das was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No. 617/2018. When the two writ petitions were taken up for consideration, an interim order was passed on 7.2.2018 providing as follows: (1) The impugned cancellation order dated 25.1.2018 shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) with the AFDC within 13.02.2018. (2) Subject to deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs), the writ petitioner would be permitted to operate the fishery until further orders. (3) The petitioner would also execute an undertaking before the authorities that he would be liable to pay the entire balance amount as per the schedule that would be notified to the petitioner within two weeks from today. (4) The payment that may be made shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in the writ petition. (5) If the petitioner succeeds in these writ petitions, remission, if any, admissible under the law, shall be adjusted against the payment already made. 5. The aforesaid interim order dated 7.2.2018 was carried in appeal by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited in W.A. No. 40/2018. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 12.2.2018 in terms of the interim order dated 7.2.2018. 5. The aforesaid interim order dated 7.2.2018 was carried in appeal by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited in W.A. No. 40/2018. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 12.2.2018 in terms of the interim order dated 7.2.2018. However, the said amount was not accepted by the respondent Corporation on the ground that appeal preferred by it was pending consideration. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 7.3.2018. With the dismissal of the appeal, respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 9.3.2018 indicating acceptance of the said amount and requesting the appellant to furnish an undertaking on or before 12.3.2018 for payment of the remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 1,25,04,625/- after adjustment of Rs. 30,00,000/- deposited by the appellant. A schedule of payment was notified in the said letter dated 9.3.2018 indicating as follows: (i) On or before 22.3.18 Rs.41,68,208.00 (ii) On or before 2.4.2018 Rs.41.68,208.00 (iii) On or before 12.4.2018 Rs.41,68,209.00 6. As no undertaking was furnished by the appellant, a letter dated 22.3.2018 was issued requesting the appellant to submit the undertaking within three days. In response to the said letter as well as the letter dated 9.3.2018, the appellant wrote a letter dated 26.3.2018 disputing the amount shown as outstanding by the respondent Corporation and contending that the total outstanding balance is only Rs. 97,21,636/-. Accordingly, the appellant demanded a fresh schedule of payment. 7. It is significant to note that the appellant did not apprise the Court by filing any application that he could not honour the interim order passed by this Court because of the aforesaid so called discrepancies. Subsequently, on 7.8.2018, the appellant wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 indicating that an amount of Rs. 97,21,636/- would be paid by him as per the schedule of payment as prepared by him. The amount claimed to be outstanding by the respondent Corporation was shown to be Rs. 1,27,21,636/-, which is the sum total of the amount of Rs. 45,80,693/- for the year 2016-17 and Rs. 80,40,493/- for the year 2017-18. However, the figure of Rs. 1,27,21,636/- on that basis is not correct and it ought to have been Rs. 1,26,21,186/-. 8. The amount claimed to be outstanding by the respondent Corporation was shown to be Rs. 1,27,21,636/-, which is the sum total of the amount of Rs. 45,80,693/- for the year 2016-17 and Rs. 80,40,493/- for the year 2017-18. However, the figure of Rs. 1,27,21,636/- on that basis is not correct and it ought to have been Rs. 1,26,21,186/-. 8. The learned Single Judge, in view of non-compliance of the interim order dated 7.2.2018, observed that the appellant is not a bona fide litigant, in as much as, although respite was given to the appellant by passing the interim order dated 7.2.2018, the appellant only disputed the amount and devised his own schedule of payment. In Paragraphs-11 and 20 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noted as follows: "11. The present respondent Corporation on 02.04.2018 filed the I.A. (Civil) No. 1126/2018 to modify/alter/vacate the interim order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 504/2018. On 06.04.2018, the matter was listed and as the affidavit-in-opposition in the interlocutory application and also the affidavit-in-reply in the writ petition were not tagged with the case record the matter was adjourned till 20.04.2018. Vide order dated 20.04.2018, the matter was adjourned and the same was again listed on 28.05.2018 on which date both the counsel of the parties to the writ petition agreed the same to be listed on 12.06.2018 with an endeavour to dispose of the writ petition itself. On 12.06.2018, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 16.07.2018 while the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for adjournment of the matter on his personal ground. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent Corporation on that date that the petitioner defaulted for the financial year 2018-19 an amount of Rs. 19,44,445.00 and the sum of Rs. 50,609.00 as fine. The said amount was demanded to be paid within a period of 7 days with effect from 05.07.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitting receipt of the said demand notice informed this Court that the petitioner would pay the said amount within two weeks starting from 16.07.2018. On 01.08.2018, the matter was again fixed for admission on 09.08.2018. The said amount was demanded to be paid within a period of 7 days with effect from 05.07.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitting receipt of the said demand notice informed this Court that the petitioner would pay the said amount within two weeks starting from 16.07.2018. On 01.08.2018, the matter was again fixed for admission on 09.08.2018. On the said date while the matter was taken up it was informed to this Court that the petitioner failed to act as per the undertaking given by the learned counsel to deposit the amount of Rs. 19,44,445.00 and the sum of Rs. 50,609.00 as per the learned senior counsel of the respondent Corporation and the same amounts to willful violation of the order dated 16.07.2018, On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fresh proposal was placed before the respondent Corporation on 7.8.2018 but owing to the absence of the Managing Director no action could be taken by the Corporation. A copy of the said proposal was also placed before this Court. From the said proposal it is seen that the petitioner admitted an amount of Rs. 97,21,636.00 which is due to the Corporation leaving aside the amount of Rs. 19,44,445.00. ..................................................................... 20. While passing the impugned order the respondent Corporation considered Clause 4.3 of the tender wherein the petitioner admitted the location of the fishery and on his satisfaction the petitioner submitted his tender bid by quoting the figure of annual revenue. Clause 11.7.5 of the tender application is similar to Clause 23 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the respondent Corporation that if lessee suffered from flood, drought etc., the respondent Corporation is not liable and no revenue will be re-adjusted. Referring to the guidelines, the respondent Corporation observed that revenue cannot be adjusted for the fault of the lessee or any environmental changes. The respondent Corporation vide its letter dated 22.12.2017 requested the petitioner to deposit the unpaid revenue within 31.12.2017 informing further that on failure, the settlement will be cancelled and Bakijai proceeding would be initiated to recover the unpaid revenue, but the petitioner failed to deposit the unpaid revenue. Considering the same, the impugned order was passed thereby cancelling the settlement." 9. Mr. Considering the same, the impugned order was passed thereby cancelling the settlement." 9. Mr. Das has placed reliance on the letter dated 31.7.2019 of respondent No. 1, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to I.A. (Civil) No. 2743/2019 (in the English translation of the said letter, the date is wrongly typed as 01.07.2019), to impress upon the Court that yearly revenue from 2016-2017 had been re-fixed at Rs. 46,66,666/- instead of Rs. 77,77,777/- and if that be so, there is no arrear amount to be paid by the appellant, rather the appellant had paid excess revenue of Rs. 6,18,209/-. He has further submitted that the aforesaid letter is based on the representations submitted by the appellant and in view of the above subsequent development, the order of cancellation of settlement of the fishery is liable to be set at naught and the appellant be allowed to operate the fishery in accordance with law. 10. Mr. Sarma, on the other hand, relying on records of the Corporation, submitted that the aforesaid letter dated 31.7.2019 was issued by respondent No. 1 without any authority and in express violation of the order passed by the Chairman of the respondent Corporation on 26.7.2019. He has also pointed out that the Project Director of the respondent Corporation had put up a note to respondent No. 1 indicating that with due approval of the Chairman, certain decisions have been taken in respect of management of the fishery. However, respondent No. 1 had indicated that post facto approval of the Chairman needs to be taken. A copy of the note submitted by the Project Director was forwarded to the Legal Advisor vide communication dated 25.4.2019. He has submitted that no post facto approval with regard to the said proposal was accorded by the Chairman and on the contrary, the Chairman had passed an order dated 26.7.2019 holding in categorical terms that the appellant is not entitled to re-fixation of revenue. When the letter dated 31.7.2019 was issued without due approval of the Chairman, no right can flow to the appellant on the basis of the letter dated 31.7.2019, more so, in view of express negation of the claim for re-fixation of revenue of the fishery by the Chairman. 11. We have perused the records produced by Mr. When the letter dated 31.7.2019 was issued without due approval of the Chairman, no right can flow to the appellant on the basis of the letter dated 31.7.2019, more so, in view of express negation of the claim for re-fixation of revenue of the fishery by the Chairman. 11. We have perused the records produced by Mr. Sarma and we find that the Chairman had passed an order dated 26.7.2019 wherein he has observed that the appellant is not entitled to re-fixation of revenue. It is to be borne in mind that all these developments had taken place while the appeal is pending. The decision communicated vide AFDC.523/235 dated 25.4.2019, which is a letter addressed to the Legal Advisor of the respondent Corporation issued by the Managing Director was reviewed by the Chairman. In other words, the note as put up to the Legal Advisor was not accepted by the Chairman. It is not understood under what authority the Managing Director had issued the letter dated 31.7.2019 despite the order dated 26.7.2019 of the Chairman. It is for the Chairman to look into that aspect of the matter and take such action as may be considered necessary. 12. When an amount of Rs. 97,21,636/- is admittedly due and payable by the appellant and when the appellant had also not complied with the directions contained in the interim order dated 7.2.2018, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was wholly justified in dismissing the writ petitions of the appellant. 13. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.