http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: M/S BAGHOPURI M.M.SAMBAL SAMITI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/03/1999

BENCH: S.  RAJENDRA BABU, S.N.  PHUKAN.

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU. J. :

       These appeals are filed against an order made by the Government  of  Assam  by  which certain fishery rights were settled In favour of the appellant by an order  dated  April 20, 1994.   The said order was challenged in writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, who heard the  matter,  set  aside the  order  of the Government and remanded the matter to the Government for settlement applying the correct principles of law.  Again on April 5, 1995, the appellant society  applied for settlement of fishery.  The Deputy Commissioner, Darrang cancelled  the settlement of fishery made with the appellant society and thereafter a writ petition was presented in  the High  Court of Gauhati challenging the settlement of fishery in favour of the appellant.  The contention put forth before the High Court was that the appellant  did  not  fulfil  the requirements  of direct settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules inasmuch as  the  said  society  was formed  with  the  members belonging to Maimal Community who are not entitled to direct settlement.  This  community  had been  recognised  and  notified for Cachar District only and cannot be equated with the Scheduled  Castes  community  for the  purpose  of getting settlement of the fishery under the proviso to Rule 12 in other parts of  the  State  of  Assam. The  learned Single judge disposed of the writ petitions and as regards the applicability of the proviso to  Rule  12  to the Maimal Community observed that the appellant society was situated  in  Darrang  district  and was formed with persons belonging to Maimal Community  and  the  members  of  Maimal Community   in   the   Cacher  District  are  backward  and, therefore, they need protection and economic help.  The  aim of proviso to Rule 12 is to give the benefit of a fishery to a  cooperative  society formed with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing  population  belonging  to  Scheduled  Caste  or Maimal Community.    Backwardness  and  economic deprivation were the main criteria for giving the benefit  and  not  the place  of  residence and though the members of the appellant belonged to the Maimal Community of Cachar District new they were permanently residing in Darrang District and they could not be deprived of getting tine benefit of proviso  to  Rule 12.   However, he directed the Government to consider and to give  settlement  of  the   fishery   in   question,   after considering the following questions:

(i) Whether  the  claimant-fishery  cooperative  society  is formed  with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing population

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

belonging to Scheduled Caste or Maimal Community  of  Cachar District; (ii) Whether the members of the said  society  live  in  the neighbourhood  of the fishery in question; and (iii)  Whether  the said society fulfils the other terms and conditions necessary for giving settlement.

       Appeals were  carried  against  the said order.  The Division Bench of the High Court which considered the matter took the view that the Mainmal Community of Cachar  District had  been put at oar with other Scheduled Caste of the State as notified by the President by  public  notification  under Article 341  of  the  Constitution.    The list of Scheduled Castes as notified by  Presidential  order  can  neither  be added   nor   substracted  by  any  other  authority  except Parliament.

       The precise question that  arose  for  consideration was  whether  the  Maimal  Community who settled outside the district  of  Cachar  was  entitled  to   any   preferential treatment or  protection.    In  other  words,  whether  the benefit  under  proviso  to  Rule  12   is   restricted   to geographical  limit  of  the  Cachar  District, or it can be availed of even out of the Cachar District.  On this  aspect of  the  matter,  the  Division  Bench held that while there could be no inhibition for a member of SC/ST migrating but a member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe when  migrates  does  not and  cannot  carry any right or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State  and  on  parity  of reasoning  extended  the same to the Maimal Community of the Cachar District.   Even  if  the  community  is  treated  as backward,  as has been observed by the learned Single Judge, and, therefore, in need of protection and economic help  the members thereof cannot claim or carry the privileges outside the  Cachar  District  and on that basis allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and dismissed the appeal  filed  by the  appellant  and took the view that the appellant was not eligible to claim fishery rights.  It is against  this  part of the order that these appeals have been filed.

       In  order to correctly appreciate the issue involved in this case, we may set out the relevant provisions of  the Rules.  Rules 8, 12 and 13 read as follows :

       Rule 8 :

       "(a) Settling  Authority.     The   Deputy         Commissioner   or  the  Additional  Deputy         Commissioner in case of Sadar Division and         Sub-Divisional Officer in  case  of  other         Sub-divisions shall be the authorities for         settlement  of  all  registered  fisheries         under  tender  system  of  sale  in  their         respective jurisdiction.

       (b)  Extension  of  the term of lease, (i)         Where the period of  lease  of  registered         fisheries  being  ordinarily not less than         three years is interfered with, due to any         natural  cause  or  for  any   unavoidable         reasons beyond the control of the lessees,         Government  may  extend the period of such         lease supported by official reports as  to         the   nature  of  cause  in  exceptionally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

       special cases for a reasonable  period  so         as to enable such lessees to make good the         loss.

       (ii) The State Government may also, on the         recommendation    of   the   Director   of         Fisheries extend the period of lease of  a         fishery  with  an intending pisciculturist         who  should  invariably  be  the   sitting         lessee  and  who  agrees to accept such an         extension at a revenue and for such  other         additional  terms and conditions as may be         specified by Government :

       (iii) Provided that one of the  conditions         of     extension    of    lease    against         piscicultural plan shall invariably be the         Implementation  of  approved   scheme   or         schemes  of development and improvement of         such a fishery at the  lessee’s  own  cost         within  a  target  period  to  be fixed by         Government.

       The order of extension  of  lease  on  the         aforesaid  grounds,  passed  by  the State         Government shall be final  and  no  appeal         shall   lie   against   such   orders   of         extension.

       (c)..,..,         (d)......         (e) Re-sale  of  fisheries.     When   for         default kist money or for violation of any         of  the  conditions  of  the fishery lease         including any of the provisions  of  these         Rules by a lessee the fishery shall be put         to re-sale under tender system at the risk         of original  lessee.    Notice  of re-sale         shall be given  as  in  the  case  of  the         original  sale with the additional proviso         that the re-sale shall be at the  risk  of         and on account of the original lessee.

                       Provided  that  the  question  of         such re-sale shall not be applicable where         State Government permits extension of time         for payment of kist money."

       Rule 12

       "Except  those referred to in sub-rule No.         8(b) above, all registered fisheries shall         be settled under tender system of sale  in         place of sale by auction.

                       Provided    that    the     State         Government   may   settle  any  registered         fishery,  otherwise  than   under   tender         system, with a fishery cooperative society         frame  with  100 per cent actual fishermen         of   the   fishing   population   in   the         neighbourhood of the fishery concerned and         belonging  to Scheduled Caste of the State         or Maimal Community of the Cachar District         at a revenue calculated and for  a  period

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

       decided  by the State Government from time         to time."

       Rule 13

       (a) "With  prior  approval  of  the  State         Government  not  more  than 60 per cent of         the fisheries In a sub-division  available         for settlement in a year shall be selected         for sale under tender system only with the         Cooperative  Fishery Societies formed with         100 per cent share holders from members of         actual   fishermen   belonging   to    the         Scheduled Caste of the State and/or Maimal         Community  of  the  District of Cachar and         registered  under  the  Assam  Cooperative         Societies Act,  1949.    Settlement of all         such fisheries tenders of which have  been         accepted  under  R.5  shall  be  with  the         highest tender.

       (b)   The   remaining   fisheries  in  the         sub-division available in that year  under         tender  system  of sale, shall remain open         for   settlement   to   ail    communities         including    Co-operative   Societies   as         referred to in Sub-R.(a) above.

       (c) Cooperative Fishery Society by members         of  actual  fishermen  belonging  to   the         Scheduled          Castes/          Maimal         Community/Scheduled Tribes/other  Backward         Classes  and  registered  under  the Assam         Cooperative Societies Act, 1949, shall  be         given   option  to  accept  settlement  of         fisheries of the category as mentioned  in         sub-R.(b)  above  at  the  highest tender;         provided that their tender is within  71/2         per cent of the highest tender.

       (d) When the tenders for fisheries failing         within  the category referred to Sub-R.(b)         above are below  7-1/2  per  cent  of  the         highest  tender (i) Co-operative Societies         as  stated  in   sub-R.(c)   above,   (ii)         individual  members  of  actual  fishermen         belonging to  the  Scheduled  Castes/  and         other   Backward  Classes  who  may  offer         tenders not less than 60 per cent  of  the         highest  tender,  may  be  given option to         take settlement  of  the  fishery  at  the         highest  bid,  in  the order of preference         stated above subject  suitability  of  the         tenderer,

       (e) When a fishery referred  in  sub-R.(b)         above  fetching  a  tender  not  exceeding         Rs.50,000 per annum is  settled  with  any         individual  member  from  actual fishermen         belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Castes,         Scheduled Tribes/Maimal Community or other         Backward  Classes  the  tenderer  shall be         entitled to a rebate of 7-1/2 per cent  as         concession.  But when a fishery fetching a         tender  not  exceeding Rs.one lakh (Rupees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

       one lakh) per annum is  settled  with  any         Cooperative   Fishery  Society  formed  by         members from communities as stated  above,         the tenderer society shall get a rebate of         ten per cent as concession :

                       Provided that 100 per cent rebate         as  aforesaid  shall  not  be available to         Cooperative Fishery  Society  formed  with         100  per  cent  shareholders  from  actual         fishermen  belonging  to   the   Scheduled         Castes   of   the  State  and  the  Maimal         Community of the  District  of  Cachar  if         they  accept  settlement  of  fisheries as         stated in Sub-R.(a)) above;

                       Provided  further that such shall         not be admissible in case  any  individual         or  Cooperative  Fishery  Society  of  any         protected  community  offers  the  highest         tender.

       (f)  Any  tenderer claiming the concession         provided In this rule shall  indicate  the         same in his tender."

                       The validity of  the  said  rules         had  been  challenged  in the Gauhati High         Court in Arabinda Das & etc, vs.  State of         Assam & Ors., AIR 1981  Gauhati  18.    In         that  case,  the  background  in which the         said Rules were framed was considered  and         it  was  noticed  that  the  Rules  can be         framed  in  terms  of  the  Assam  Land  &         Revenue  Regulations  and  the  successive         amendments of the Rules made from time  to         time   indicated   the   anxiety   of  the         Government  to  give  a  better  deal   to         deserving persons, namely, the cooperative         societies  formed  by  actual fishermen by         settling  mole  and  more  fisheries  with         them,   the   emphasis   being   that  the         Government   was   more   concerned   with         providing  work to the actual fishermen to         improve their lot than deriving revenue to         the exchequer.     After   analysing   the         various rules it was noticed as follows:

       "On  a  careful  perusal of the proviso to         Rule 12 we find that the exercise  of  the         power under  it  is  not arbitrary.  There         are prerequisites which must be  satisfied         before  the power of direct settlement can         be exercised by the State Government under         the proviso.    These  prerequisites   are         that:

       (a) a settlement of a  registered  fishery         can   only   be   made   with   a  fishery         cooperative;

       (b)  formed  with  hundred per cent actual         fishermen of fishing population;

       (c) in the neighbourhood  of  the  fishery

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

       concerned;

       (d) belonging to the Scheduled  Castes  of         the  State  or  Maimal  Community  of  the         Cachar District; and

       (e) at a  revenue  calculated  and  for  a         period  decided  by  the  State Government         from time to time."

       If we bear these principles in  mind,  the         interpretation   of  proviso  to  Rule  12         becomes easy.    It  is   unnecessary   to         examine    the    question   whether   the         appellants belong to any backward class or         Scheduled Caste when specifically the rule         stated that persons  belonging  to  Maimal         Community  of  the  Cachar District become         eligible to apply for  settlement  of  the         registered fishery.            Now     the         interpretation of the said provision turns         upon  the  exact  language  used  by   the         Government.   The  fact that the appellant         society consists of members  belonging  to         Maimal Community of the Cachar District is         not in  dispute.  Their case is that their         members  belong  to  the   Maimal   Maimal         Community  of the Cachar District and they         fall into a class which  is  described  in         the   relevant   rules   and  thus  become         entitled to seek the  registered  fishery.         The  learned  Single Judge did not indulge         in any exercise in  semantics  as  to  the         expression "Maimal Community of the Cachar         District"  and as to whether the operation         of the  said  rule  is  confined  only  to         Cachar  District  or  outside  but  on the         basis that the  Maimal  Community  of  the         Cachar   District   were  members  of  the         society and the object of the  rule  being         to  help  the  backward  classes they were         entitled to  the  same  even  though  such         persons   may   be  residing  outside  the         district.  The Division Bench of the  High         Court:   laid  emphasis  on the expression         "of the Cachar District"  and,  therefore,         took the view that they must belong to the         Maimal  Community  and  must reside within         the district to  become  entitled  to  the         benefit of the rule.  Now we may advert to         the  policy  adopted  by the Government of         Assam in the matter of backward classes in         the communication  No.    TAD/DC/268/75/37         dated November  27,  1975.   We may notice         that there are certain  communities  which         are  recognised  only in a particular area         geographically.  In respect of others, all         that is stated is "Kumar;  Rudra  Paul  of         Cachar" while in case of Rajbonshi or Koch         (Koch  of  Goalpara  and Garo Hills only).         Specific mention is made as confined to  a         particular area.    When area of operation         of a notification Is not confined  to  any         particular  geographical  region the areas         referring  to  persons  belonging   to   a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

       community  of  a particular district would         only be the words of  description  and  in         such  cases  we will have to take the term         "of" as denoting origin or descent of  the         persons    belonging   to   a   particular         community of an area.  Ultimately it means         that they hail from a particular area  and         recognises    them   belonging   to   that         particular   district   and    no    more.         Therefore,  the  view  taken by the teamed         Single Judge of the High Court appears  to         us  to  be more reasonable and appropriate         than the view taken by the Division  Bench         of the High Court.  During pendency of the         matter  before the competent authority the         benefit of interim order granted  by  this         Court shall continue until disposal of the         matter.

                       On  this  reasoning, we allow the         appeals filed by  the  appellant  and  set         aside the order made by the Division Bench         and  restore  that  of  the learned Single         Judge.    The    appeals    are    allowed         accordingly.   Considering  the nature and         circumstances of the case, there shall  be         no order as to costs.