M/S. BAGHOPURI M.M SAMBAI SAMITI versus STTE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 30-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. BAGHOPURI M.M SAMBA! SAMITI 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
MARCH 30, 1999 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
(ASSAM) FISHERY RULES: 
Rule 12, Proviso-Expression 'Maimal Community of the Cacher 
District'-Jnterpretation of-Applicability of the benefit outside the District- C 
Held : Area of operation is not confined to any particular geographical 
region-Hence the benefit would be applicable to Maimal Community of the 
Cachar District even though they may be residing outside the District. 
Appellant-society is situated in Darrang District and is comprised of 
members permanently residing in Darrang District and who belong to Maimal D 
Community of the Cachar District. Proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules 
provides that a fishery co-operative society consisting of members belonging 
to Scheduled Caste of the State or Maimal Community of the Cachar District 
is eligible for direct settlement of fishery rights subject to the conditions 
specified therein. A Writ petition was presented in the High Court of Gauhati E 
challenging the settlement of fishery in favour of the appellant on the ground 
that the benefit to members of Maimal Community under proviso to Rule 12 
is restricted to Geographical limit ofCachar District only and the members 
of the appellant- society belonging to Maimal Community who are settled 
outside the District of Cachar cannot get the benefit of direct settlement 
under the proviso; and that Maimal Community 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. 
F 
Single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding that Maimal 
Community of the Cachar District were members of the society and since G 
the object of the proviso to Rule 12 was to help the backward classes by 
giving them protecti~n and economic help, the members of the Maimal 
Community of Cachar District were entitled to the benefit even though they 
- may be residing outside the district. The Single Judge formulated three 
questions and directed the Government to consider and to give settlement of 
the fishery in question after considering the questions. Both the appellants H 
275 
• 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 2 S.C.R. 
' A and the respondents preferred appeals against the Order of the Single 
Judge. 
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the 
respondents and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. It held that 
members of the Maimal Community must reside within the geographical 
B limit of Cachar District to become entitled to the benefit under provisio to 
Rule 12 and cannot carry the claims or privileges under the Rule outside 
Cachar District; and therefore, the appellant-society was not eligible to 
claim fishery rights under the Rule. Hence these appeals. 
The appellant-society contended that their members belong to the Maimal 
C Community ofCachar District and they fall into a class which is described 
in the proviso to Rule 12 and are entitled to seek the benefit of registered 
fishery under the Rule without any geographical limit being placed on them. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the court 
HELD : 1. 
Backwardness and economic deprivation were the main 
criteria for giving the benefit under the Fishery Rules and not the place of 
residence. [277-G] 
Arabinda Das v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR (1981) Gauhati 18, referred 
E to. 
2. The interpretation of the provisio to Rule 12 turns upon the exact 
language used by the Government. When area of operation of a notification 
is not confined to any particular geographical region the areas referring to 
persons belonging to a community of a particular district would only be the 
F words of description and in such cases the term "or• has to be taken 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 as belonging to that particular district and not more. 
[283-C-D} 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4672-74 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.97 of the Assam High Court 
in W.A. Nos. 393, 458 and 471 of 1996. 
H 
P.K. Goswami, Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant 
--
BAGHOPURI M.M. S.S. v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
277 
U. Hazarika for S.M. Jadhav, Vijay Hansaria, (S.K. Jain) for Mis Jain A 
Hansaria & Co., (Pravir Choudhary) (NP) for the Respondents. 
Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.