Ayeen Uddin V. Assam Fishery Development Corporation Ltd. and The Managing Director Assam Fishery Development Corporation

WP(C)/2866/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the extension of a lease agreement for Baya Min Mahal (Fishery) in Hailakandi district, managed by AFDC. Ayeen Uddin, the petitioner, had initially been granted a lease for seven years, which was set to expire on 31.03.2019. Due to court litigation, Uddin was unable to operate the fishery for a period but continued to pay the agreed revenue. He sought an extension of the lease by one year, citing clauses in the lease agreement that allowed for such an extension under specific circumstances. However, his request was rejected by AFDC, leading to the filing of this writ petition. The court's decision to dismiss the petition was based on the principle that a lease cannot be extended once it has expired, regardless of the circumstances that led to the request for extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799211 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SC AFDC
• Assessee Lawyers: R MAJUMDAR
• Keywords: Settlement Order; Tender process; Lease extension; Fishery management; Court litigation

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010095342019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 2866/2019 1:AYEEN UDDIN S/O LT. ALAUDDIN, R/O VILLAGE , P.O. AND PS PANCHGRAM, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788802 VERSUS 1:ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. A GOVT. OF ASSAM ENTERPRISE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MOTHER TERESA ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM FISHERY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MOTHER TERESA ROAD GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AFDC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN ORDER Date : 06-05-2019 Heard Mr R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S B Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Limited (AFDC). 2. Baya Min Mahal (Fishery) in the district of Hailakandi is under management of AFDC. Following a tender process, the Fishery was settled by AFDC with the petitioner vide settlement order dated 27.09.2012 for a period of 7 (seven) years up to 31.03.2019 at an annual revenue of ₹ 61,000.00. 3. According to the petitioner, because of court litigation he could not operate the Fishery for a particular period though he had paid the revenue for all the seven years. Invoking Clauses 36 (Ka) and Page No.# 2/2 (Kha) of the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and AFDC, petitioner sought for extension of the settlement period by one year, by filing application for extension. However, by communication dated 01.02.2019, such prayer was rejected. At that stage, petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1549 of 2019, which was disposed of on 18.03.2019 by setting aside the communication dated 01.02.2019 and remanding the matter back to the Managing Director, AFDC, to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner. Communication dated 01.02.2019 was set aside on the ground that no reasons for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner were discernible. It was observed that settling authority was required to apply its mind before taking decision one way or the other. On remand, Managing Director, AFDC, has passed order dated 26.03.2019, rejecting the representation of the petitioner by holding that prayer of extension for one year cannot be considered. Relevant portion of the order dated 26.03.2019 is extracted hereunder:- “In his representation dated 28.11.2018, the lessee has not submitted the details of loss and nor any authenticated report of income and expenditure submitted by him from which Corporation could be ascertained that the lessee suffered loss which was beyond his control. Furthermore, the lessee had not even mentioned as to whether any return had been submitted by him before the Income Tax Authorities. On the basis of mere submission of loss without having any details of loss or damages, Corporation cannot allow extension of lease period as other intending bidders are waiting for participating in tender process as per norms. In the meantime, the Corporation has received tenders but could not be finalized due to Model Code of Conduct of ensuing Parliamentary Elections.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, Managing Director has made an observation that petitioner had got possession of the Fishery after six months; if he makes prayer that may be considered. 5. It is trite that a lease can be extended only when it is in existence. Lease which is not in existence or which is not subsisting cannot be extended. 5.1. In the instant case, lease agreement of the petitioner with AFDC was till 31.03.2019. By impugned order dated 26.03.2019, prayer for extension has been rejected. After the lease period is over, no direction can be issued to the respondents to extend the lease. 6. In that view of the matter, Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "