Subhash Dhaka vs Goan Sabha and Others

D. K. Seth, J.—The petitioner was granted lease in respect of tank fishery with the right of fishing for a period of 10 years ending 19797. Clause 12 of lease agreement stipulates that in case the conduct of the lessee is found good then his case may be considered for grant of further lease for a period of 10 years.

By an order dated 22394, contained as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the Agricultural Development Commissioner had pointed out that tank fisheries should be leased out only to the persons belonging to the fishing community. Subsequently a Government Order dated 171095, contained as Annexure 6 to the writ petition, was also issued to the effect that grant of fishing right has been restricted to fishermen community of the society. The petitioner apprehends that by reason of such orders, the petitioner''s case may not be considered for the purpose of renewal.

After having perused the agreement, it appears that no right has been accrued to the petitioner for renewal of the lease for a further period of 10 years. It was only a stipulation that his case may be considered.

Relying on Section 197 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Rule 173 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of said provision, the petitioner''s case falls within the category of persons who are eligible for grant of such lease, therefore, his rights cannot be denied.

For the development of certain community which are found weaker in the society, certain protection have been granted in the form of Government Orders which cannot be thrown away only on the ground that the same are contrary to the right which might be available on certain conditions to an individual upon consideration of his case under the statute when such rights are not absolute indefeasible right. Then again such protection is not contrary to the provisions of the statute inasmuch as the fishing is done by the fishing community and if they are allowed to be displaced by better financial resourced persons that may work against the interest of the weaker section of the society. The Constitution provides in Article 46 a duty upon the State for protection and development of the weaker section of the Society. Therefore, I do not find any reason that the impugned orders are to be struck down by the reasons advanced in the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders contained as Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The lease may be granted through public auction after open advertisement in accordance with law. In case the petitioner falls within the category, eligible for participating in such auction, he may be allowed to participate.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

There will, however, be no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.