# Chandrika v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 881
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-23
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 66919 of 2014
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrika-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43225
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Settlement of fisheries rights-petitioner
participated
in
auction
bid-being
declared highest bidder for Rs. 60,900/-
deposited
on
16.07.2014-subsequent
action by entertaining application from
stranger and cancellation of highest bidwithout jurisdiction-when cancellation
itself illegal entire subsequent exercise
itself illegal-quashed.
Held: Para-8
The matter may be examined from
another angle also, once the auction
proceeding was over, it was not open for
the revenue authorities to accept the
application, requiring the person to
deposit the money in order to earn more
venue. The settlement of fishery right
has to held strictly in accordance with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement and the government order
dated 17.10.1995. The action of the
revenue authorities in entertaining the
applications after the auction was over is
beyond their jurisdiction and contrary to
the aim and object of the Government
Order dated 17.10.1995 and the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Ram Kumar (supra) and conditions of
the advertisement.
Case Law discussed:
(2005(99) RD 823

## Text

2 All] Chandrika Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
of the appellant for being considered for
the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and
we direct that the State Government may
consider the case of appointment of the
appellant as Sub-Inspector of Excise. Be
it stated, in the event he is appointed it
would be prospective and he will not be
entitled to any retrospective benefit. The
appeals are allowed accordingly."
11. From the aforesaid facts it is
manifest that the petitioner has been
treated differently and the action of the
respondent authorities violates Article 14
of the Constitution. In the result, the
impugned order dated 11th February,
2011, annexed as Annexure-CA-3 to the
counter affidavit, is set aside and the
matter
is
remitted
to
the
second
respondent to consider the cause of the
petitioner and pass the appropriate order
in accordance with law expeditiously.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
13. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 66919 of 2014
Chandrika
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.P. Mishra, Sri Manvendra Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Tarik Maqbool Khan
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Settlement of fisheries rights-petitioner
participated
in
auction
bid-being
declared highest bidder for Rs. 60,900/-
deposited
on
16.07.2014-subsequent
action by entertaining application from
stranger and cancellation of highest bidwithout jurisdiction-when cancellation
itself illegal entire subsequent exercise
itself illegal-quashed.
Held: Para-8
The matter may be examined from
another angle also, once the auction
proceeding was over, it was not open for
the revenue authorities to accept the
application, requiring the person to
deposit the money in order to earn more
venue. The settlement of fishery right
has to held strictly in accordance with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement and the government order
dated 17.10.1995. The action of the
revenue authorities in entertaining the
applications after the auction was over is
beyond their jurisdiction and contrary to
the aim and object of the Government
Order dated 17.10.1995 and the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Ram Kumar (supra) and conditions of
the advertisement.
Case Law discussed:
(2005(99) RD 823
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri B.P. Mishra, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents and learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha.
2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuing a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 1 to decide the petitioner's
application dated 11.8.2014 and approve
the bid of the petitioner for the pond in
dispute.
882
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. The facts giving rise to this case
are that with respect to pond over Khasra
Nos. 304 and 305 measuring about 0.267
hectare and 0.3240 hectares respectively
situated in Village Khairahva Jangal,
Nautanwa,
District
Maharajganj,
an
advertisement was made in the news
paper Rashtriya Sahara dated 25.6.2014,
fixing 11.7.2014 for settlement of fishery
lease. Pursuant thereto, two persons
participated, out of which, the petitioner's
bid was Rs. 60,900/-. The petitioner was
required to deposit 1/4th amount, which
he deposited, but no lease was executed.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner
filed
an
application on 11.8.2014 requesting the
authority concerned to execute the lease
pursuant to the auction held on 11.7.2014.
When nothing was done, the petitioner
has approached this Court through the
present writ petition.
4. In this writ petition, on
10.12.2014, learned standing counsel was
directed to seek instructions. Pursuant
thereto, after number of dates, instruction
was obtained and considering the same,
on 1.4.2015 this Court has passed the
following order:
"Pursuant to the earlier order of this
Court, learned standing counsel has
sought instructions informing the Court
that after the bid was over, one Sri
Bibhuti Yadav and Sri Ram Milan had
approached the auction officer and
offered some more amount for the
performance of the lease. On this,
petitioner's bid has been cancelled.
Learned standing counsel is directed
to get the personal affidavit of Sub
Divisional Officer concerned, swearing
the contents of the instructions on
affidavit within a period of 10 days.
As prayed, put up this case on
17.4.2015 in the additional cause list.
By that date, learned standing
counsel shall file the required personal
affidavit and on next date of listing, the
concerned Sub Divisional Officer shall
remain present before this Court along
with complete records of the auction
proceedings in order to assist the learned
standing counsel. "
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order,
Sri Jay Chandra Pandey, Sub Divisional
Officer, Nautanwa, Maharajganj has filed
his personal affidavit. For the purpose of
this case, perusal of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
of the aforesaid affidavit would be
necessary to be looked into, which are
reproduced, herein, under :-
"5. That it may be submitted here
that Sri Mangru son of Rupai and Sri
Chandrika son of Jokhu have taken part
in the auction, and the petitioner was the
highest bidder for Rs. 60,900/-.
6. That after the auction, Sri Vibhuti
Yadav and Sri Ram Milan moved their
applications on 15.7.2014 and 16.7.2014
before the then Sub Divisional Officer,
mentioning that the auction has been done
in low money and without giving
information, which caused loss to gaon
sabha. It is further submitted that Sri Ram
Milan wished to lease the land at Rs.
80,000/-, on the basis of which, the then
Tehsildar on 18.7.2014 produced a report
that Rs. 20,000/- may be deposited by Sri
Ram Milan son of Santu as security
amount and the auction may again be
initiated by cancelling the auction dated
11.7.2014, upon which thet then Sub
Divisional Officer agreed on 28.7.2014,
and directed to proceed in furtherance. A
true copy of the applications dated
2 All] Chandrika Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
15.7.2014 and 16.7.2014, and a true copy
of the letter dated 18.7.2014, is being filed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
NOS. 1, 2 & 3 to this personal affidavit.
7. That subsequent to above, Sri Ram
Milan on 28.7.2014 deposited the amount
of Rs. 20,000/- in the Naib Nazir Register
No. 4, as such, the auction dated
11.7.2014 has been cancelled vide order
dated 28.7.2014 of the Sub Divisional
Officer."
6. From the perusal of the aforesaid
paragraphs, it is apparent that pursuant to
the advertisement made in Rashtriya
Sahara on 25.6.2014, the petitioner
participated in the auction proceeding and
offered Rs. 60,900/- on 11.7.2014 and
deposited the required amount. After the
auction was over Sri Vibhuti Yadav and
Sri Ram Milan moved applications on
15.7.2014 and 16.7.2014 respectively
stating therein that they are ready to pay
Rs. 80,000/-. The Tehsildar as well as the
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
instead
of
proceeding with the auction held on
11.7.2014, entertained the applications
submitted by Vibhuti Yadav and Ram
Milan and required them to deposit Rs.
20,000/- for initiating fresh proceeding. It
is thereafter, the auction, held on
11.7.2014, was cancelled 28.7.2014. It
would also appear from the record that
Ram Milan had deposited Rs. 20,000/- on
28.7.2014.
7. It is not in dispute that the fishery
leases are settled in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Government
Order dated 17.10.1995 and the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Ram Kumar and Others Vs.
State of U.P. and Others (2005 (99) RD
823). In the Government Order dated
17.10.1995, preferences have been given
for execution of fishery lease, according
to which first priority is to be given to
Kewat,
Mallha,
Nishad,
etc.
The
petitioner belongs to Kewat by caste and
he has participated in the proceeding on
11.7.2014. Once the proceeding was over,
it was not open for the revenue authorities
to entertain any application of third
person on the ground that some more
amount has been offered. The object of
the Government Order dated 17.10.1995
is the upliftment of the poorest person
belonging to the Machhua community and
not to earn more revenue otherwise there
would have been provision for open
auction. The State Government itself
knowingly and willingly has issued the
Government Order dated 17.10.1995 for
such purpose negating the open auction
for improving the economic condition of a
particular community which has been
approved by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Ram Kumar (supra).
Therefore, if the lease is allowed to be
executed in favour of persons belonging
to other castes or of the same caste falling
under higher income group that will
defeat the object of the Government Order
dated 17.10.1995 and that will be against
the law laid down by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Ram Kumar
(supra).
8. The matter may be examined
from another angle also, once the auction
proceeding was over, it was not open for
the revenue authorities to accept the
application, requiring the person to
deposit the money in order to earn more
venue. The settlement of fishery right has
to held strictly in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the advertisement
and
the
government
order
dated
17.10.1995. The action of the revenue
authorities in entertaining the applications
884
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after the auction was over is beyond their
jurisdiction and contrary to the aim and
object of the Government Order dated
17.10.1995 and the Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Ram Kumar
(supra)
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement.
9. In view of the foregoing
discussions although the petitioner has not
sought quashing of the subsequent auction
of the revenue authorities, but under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
order dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Nautanwa,
Maharajganj,
cancelling
the
earlier
auction held for settlement of fishery
lease (in which the petitioner has offered
Rs.
60,900/-)
and
the
subsequent
proceeding, if any being illegal and
arbitrary, deserves to be quashed.
10. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order
dated
28.7.2014
and
the
consequential proceeding, if any, is
hereby quashed. The Sub Divisional
Officer,
Nautanwa,
Maharajganj
is
directed to proceed in accordance with
law and pass an appropriate order
regarding approval /disapproval of the
proceeding dated 11.7.2014 within a
period of two weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
of this Court. In case, it is approved, it is
well and good and in case, it is
disapproved reason for the same may be
recorded in the form of order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 68402 of 2014
Ganesh Prasad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri U.K. Singh, Advocate, Sri Chandra
Bhan Gupta, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., ASGI/2014/11256
Consumer Protection Act 1986-Section
10(2)-Superannuation age of member of
District forum 60 years-while upper age of
consumer forum 67 years likewise national
forum
70
years-being
discriminatoryultravires held-sole wisdom of legislaturestate forum presided by Judge High Courtand national forum by Supreme Court
Judge-member of district forum-can not
claim treatment of other state or national
forum-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-8
These are all matters which are in the
realm of policy for the legislative body in
considering as to whether there should
be a uniform age of retirement for all
members of the District Fora at par with
what
has
been
prescribed
for
the
National
Commission
or
otherwise,
whether there should be a distinction.
We find no ground to hold that the
provision is ultra vires or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The petitioner was appointed as a
member of the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum1 of Kanpur under the
Consumer Protection Act, 19862 on 4
March 2011 for a period of five years or
until
the
age
of
sixty-five
years,
whichever is earlier. The petitioner