Puspadhar Das v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors

ORDER Date : 12.02.2024

No one appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appears for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner's case is that 13 No. Nanoi Meen Mahal has been settled Page No.# 2/3 with the petitioner for seven years till 02.12.2020, vide order dated 03.12.2013. The petitioner, vide letter dated 24.09.2020, has prayed for extension of the lease period for another period of four years. As no reply was forthcoming, he submitted another representation on 27.10.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) 5086/2020, in view of no extension being given by the respondent authorities. As the respondent No. 3 had issued a letter to the respondent No. 2 on 08.12.2020, seeking approval for extension of the lease in favour of the petitioner, WP(C) 5086/2020 was disposed of, vide order dated 11.12.2020, by directing the respondents to take a decision within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 02.01.2021, extending the lease period of the Mahal in favour of the petitioner for another year till

02.12.2021.

¶3The petitioner thereafter filed two representations in September, 2021, seeking further extension of his lease, even though he had not made full payments to the respondent authorities. The petitioner also filed WP(C) 5897/2021, wherein this Court issued an order granting time to the petitioner to make his default payments. Thereafter, WP(C) 5897/2021 was disposed of, by directing the respondents to pass an order over the extension application of the concerned fishery made by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3, vide order dated 25.04.2022, extended the lease in favour of the petitioner for another one year from 03.12.2021 to 02.12.2022, in terms of the order of this Court passed in WP(C) 5897/2021. The petitioner has now again approached this Court, seeking extension of his lease on the fishery, on the ground that his representation for the same has not been decided by the authorities.

¶4This Court in its order dated 12.12.2022 had directed the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation. Though the result of the direction Page No.# 3/3 passed by this Court is not before this Court, I find that the petitioner has not been represented in the last two consecutive dates, besides today.

¶5In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010248962022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7975/2022 PUSPADHAR DAS S/O- LATE UPEN DAS , R/O- BARHAMPUR ADARSHA GAON, P.O- BARHAMPUR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON PIN-782001 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P BHARDWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA