9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the settlement of fishery under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. 2. Violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. Interpretation of Rule 12 in light of previous judgments. 4. Lack of jurisdiction and acquiescence in the settlement process. 5. Similar points of law in two separate petitions. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a challenge to the settlement of a fishery under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. The petitioner, a citizen of India and a member of the Scheduled Caste community, contests the settlement of the fishery with Respondent No. 4, claiming it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The main contention is that Rule 12 grants unguided power to the executive for arbitrary settlements, impacting the right to practice a profession. 2. The history of Rule 12 is examined, referencing past judgments. The Supreme Court previously held that Rule 12 allows the government discretion to settle fisheries directly based on special circumstances. The petitioner argues that this discretion is uncanalized and arbitrary, potentially leading to violations of Article 14. However, the court notes that the government's subjective satisfaction of special circumstances justifies direct settlements under Rule 12. 3. The judgment discusses the distinction between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction in settlement matters. Acquiescence to jurisdiction may disentitle a party to a writ if the lack of jurisdiction is latent. The court emphasizes the need for material to form an opinion on special circumstances under Rule 12, indicating that failure to object during the settlement process may waive the right to challenge jurisdiction. 4. The second petition involves a Co-operative Fishery Society challenging the settlement of a fishery with Respondent No. 4 under Rule 12. The points of law raised mirror those in the first petition, with the petitioner withdrawing the application before settlement. The court dismisses both petitions, highlighting that withdrawal does not question the government's right to settle under Rule 12. 5. The judgment concludes with all judges concurring on the dismissal of both petitions, emphasizing the lack of direct averments challenging the government's authority to settle under Rule 12. The rules are discharged with no order as to costs. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, exploring the legal arguments, historical context, and the court's interpretation of Rule 12 in the context of constitutional provisions and previous judicial decisions.
|
