ORDER : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for State respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, and Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. The discontinuance of the settlement of 25 No. Dhepujijan, 28 No. Garonga, 103 No. Garsag, and 104 No. Malia group fishery with the petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case projected by the petitioner society is that the competent authority vide order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt/294 dated 14.12.2012, had settled the said fishery with the petitioner for a period of 7 years. Upon challenge made by the unsuccessful bidder, this Court by a common judgment and order dated 27:11.2013 in W.P.(C) Nos. 138/2013 and 328/2013, had set aside the said order of settlement made in favour of the petitioner. Nonetheless, vide order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-I/373 dated 17.12.2013, the competent authority had allowed the petitioner society to run the said fishery on daily basis till finalization of fresh settlement. The aggrieved petitioner filed two intra-Court appeals and this Court by common judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 in W.A. Nos. 413/2013 and 415/2013, had set aside the judgment and order passed in the two writ petitions. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department, vide letter No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-II/351 dated 30.06.2016, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to the effect that he was directed to request to comply with the order dated 14.06.2016, formally handing over the possession of the said fishery to the petitioner, further directing that while handing over possession of the fishery, settlement period be included and the daily basis settlement period be excluded from settlement period enjoyed by the petitioner-lessee. Accordingly, the possession of the said fishery was handed over to the petitioner society on 12.9.2016. On 13.11.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation, amongst others, ventilating that the period of lease was till 13.09.2023, but the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon was contemplating to invite tender for the said fishery and requested for staying the tender process. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department by letter No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-I/408 dated 11.12.2019 sought for clarification regarding tenure of the said fishery, and the Addl. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department by letter No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-I/408 dated 11.12.2019 sought for clarification regarding tenure of the said fishery, and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon clarified that although the settlement period expired on 14.12.2019, but as per instructions contained in letter No. FISH 193/2010/Pt/351 dated 30.06.2016, while giving possession of the fishery, the Govt. had requested to exclude the daily basis settlement period from settlement period as enjoyed by the lessee society. The grievance of the petitioner society is that although they had deposited revenue till 17.07.2021, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department by an order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-I/522 dated 04.08.2020, held that the petitioner society had over-enjoyed the fishery beyond seven years tenure on the basis of an administrative order issued in 2016 without having legal sanctity, and by declaring the respondent No. 4 better placed to run the fishery, discontinued the settlement of the fishery with the petitioner and allowed the respondent No. 4 to run the said fishery temporarily on daily basis and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon was directed to hand over the said fishery to the respondent No. 4 after completion of all formality. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before passing the impugned order to discontinue settlement of the fishery with the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department had mentioned in his previous letter dated 30.06.2016, that he was acting under directions, which would mean that some superior authority than the Joint Secretary and that the Joint Secretary was just communicating direction given by the superior authority. Therefore, it was not open to him to declare his own previous letter to be one without having any legal sanctity, as done vide impugned order dated 04.08.2020. It is also submitted that the Govt. having already received revenue from the petitioner for a period upto 17.07.2021, could not have lawfully discontinued the settlement of fishery granted to the petitioner moreso, when the possession of the fishery was formally handed over to the petitioner only on 12.09.2016, as such, the 7 year lease period had not expired. 5. The respective learned counsel for the respondents have made their respective submissions in support of the impugned order. 5. The respective learned counsel for the respondents have made their respective submissions in support of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that his affidavit-in-opposition has been filed today, i.e. on 23.09.2020 after serving a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. counsel, but as it would be kept on quarantine, he has provided an extra copy thereof for the perusal of the Court. It is submitted that there was no legal basis to exclude the daily basis settlement period from the lease period because the petitioner was handed over the fishery immediately after the initial settlement order dated 14.12.2012 was passed. Hence, as the possession of the said fishery was never taken back by the Government, the order for excluding period when the fishery was settled with the petitioner on daily basis could not have been excluded, which was rectified by order dated 04.08.2020. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that by interfering with the impugned order dated 04.08.2020, the Court may be pleased to direct the State respondents No. 1 to 3 to conduct a fresh settlement process expeditiously and pending final settlement, the department should run the fishery without appointing any third party to temporarily carry out fishing in the said fishery. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has referred to the case of (i) Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 ; (ii) M/s. 19/20/21 No. Kapilinadi Matsyajibi Samiti Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) 7114/2019, decided on 20.02.2020; and (iii) judgment and order dated 15.02.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4430/2007 (name of parties not reflected in print-out). 6. It is seen that if 7 years settlement time is computed from 14.12.2012, the 7 (seven) year settlement period would have expired on 14.12.2019. There is no dispute on this at the Bar. It is also not in dispute that during the said period between 14.12.2012 to 14.12.2019, the petitioner was never dispossessed from the said fishery. 6. It is seen that if 7 years settlement time is computed from 14.12.2012, the 7 (seven) year settlement period would have expired on 14.12.2019. There is no dispute on this at the Bar. It is also not in dispute that during the said period between 14.12.2012 to 14.12.2019, the petitioner was never dispossessed from the said fishery. Therefore, in other words, the petitioner remained in unhindered physical possession of the said fishery for the entire tenure of 7 (seven) years, save and except alteration of the nomenclature of his settlement from a "regular settlement" to a "daily basis settlement", in the midst of the regular settlement period, but without change in the revenue payable by the petitioner to the State, in other words, without the petitioner enriching the State in any manner whatsoever. This position is also undisputed at the Bar. Rather, the petitioner had been permitted to over enjoy the said fishery from 14.12.2019 till the petitioner was ousted on 04.08.2020. 7. It can be appreciated that if during the continuance of the lease, the lessee is unable to enjoy the fishery for any lawful reason, in a given case, it might be permissible for the competent authority to extend the period of lease so as to compensate the lessee for the lost period. However, in this case in hand, the petitioner has not lost any period during his settlement period w.e.f. 14.12.2012 to 14.12.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provisions contained in the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 which permitted the sitting lessee the benefit of extension of fishery by excluding the "daily basis settlement period" during continuance of the period of such lease, but during which time he was otherwise in possession of such fishery. Moreover, on a perusal of the common judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 in W.A. Nos. 413/2013 and 415/2013, there appears to be no direction that the daily basis settlement period should be excluded from the regular settlement period. 8. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the direction contained in the order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-II/351 dated 30.06.2016, to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to exclude the daily basis settlement period from regular settlement period is not based on any legal provisions contained in the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. 8. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the direction contained in the order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-II/351 dated 30.06.2016, to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to exclude the daily basis settlement period from regular settlement period is not based on any legal provisions contained in the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. Having arrived at the said conclusion, it is consequentially held that the settlement period of the said fishery with the petitioner was for a period from 14.12.2012 and had come to an end on 14.12.2019. Therefore, as a natural fall-out, it was not necessary for the State to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before discontinuing the lease of the said fishery as no lawful lease exists after expiry of 14.12.2019. Hence, in the further considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner has over enjoyed the said fishery upto 4.8.2020. Therefore, no interference is called for in respect of that part of the impugned order No. FISH 193/2010/Pt-I/522 dated 4.8.2020, by which settlement of 25 No. Dhepujijan, 28 No. Garonga, 103 No. Garsag, and 104 No. Malia group fishery with the petitioner was discontinued. Insofar as the projection made by the petitioner is concern that they have paid revenue to the Govt. up to. 17.07.2021. However, as the State had revoked the lease by virtue of order dated 04.08.2020, the petitioner may be well advised regarding what has to be done with the advance revenue so paid by the petitioner. 9. Before parting with the records, it is deemed appropriate to mention herein that it is seen that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 04.08.2020. However, the said order consists of two distinct parts, first part being the discontinuance of settlement of the said fishery with the petitioner which has been assailed, and the second part consists of settlement of the said fishery with respondent No. 4 on daily basis, which appears to be not under challenge. The lack of challenge is inferred because there is no corresponding statement in the writ petition and even in the prayers made in the writ petition, no mention has been made as regards settlement of the said fishery on "daily basis" to the respondent No. 4. There is also no prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to go for expeditious re-tendering. There is also no prayer for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to go for expeditious re-tendering. Moreover, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is not desirable that any directions be issued to the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the instance of oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Therefore the ratio of the cases cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 does not come to the aid of the respondent No. 5, for which the said cases are not discussed herein to avoid burdening this order with volume. 10. In light of the discussions above, this writ petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.