Chilhuwan vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.5.2003 Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which fishery lease has been granted to respondent No. 6.

It has been held in several Division Bench decisions of this Court that fishery lease can only be granted by public auction/public tender after advertising the same in well-known newspapers having wide circulation in which all persons can bid vide Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Diwakar Rai and Another Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and Others, ; Panchoo v. Collector 1995 (90) RD 186, etc. In these decisions it was held that fishery lease can only be granted by a public auction/public tender after advertising it in well-known newspapers having wide circulation otherwise there will-violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In these decisions it has also been held that the grant of fishery lease cannot be confined to societies or members of any particular caste.

Sri Ashok Mehta learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has admitted that the fishery lease in question was granted to respondent No. 6 without holding public auction and without advertising the same in well-known newspapers having wide circulation. Thus, it is evident that the grant of fishery lease to the respondent No. 6 was wholly illegal. The impugned order is therefore, quashed.

The petition is allowed. Respondent No. 6 is restrained from operating the fishery lease in question.

The District Magistrate shall now proceed to hold public auction/public tender of the fishery lease after advertising it in well-known newspapers having wide circulations and allowing everyone to bid. This should be done at the earliest. As an interim measure we direct the District Magistrate through his officials to operate the fishery rights in the pond in question.