# Ram Sagar @ Sagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 595
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20880 of 2020
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sagar-sagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46645
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 189 & 190 - UP Revenue Rules, 2016
- R. 57 - Fishery lease - Auction - Highest
bidder defaulted in depositing the bid amount -
Next bidder (petitioner) permitted to deposit
25% bid amount - Allotment claimed by the
next bidder - Entitlement - Held, when as per
the auction, the highest bidder could not
deposit the 25 per cent of the bid amount
which was required to be deposited by him
then there was no other option left with the
authorities but to re-auction the pond - The
next bidder definitely had no right to claim for
getting allotment - High Court directed to
return back the amount deposited by the next
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bidder with an interest of 12 per cent per
annum (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

11 All. Ram Sagar @ Sagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
temporary or casual employees. He, therefore,
submitted that the petitioners were entitled for
regularization.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that his case was absolutely different
from the case of Meghu Seikh. He submits that
comparison of the case of Meghu Seikh with the
case of the petitioner was not called for.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2, 3 and 4, however, relying upon the
judgements of Lal Mohammod(supra) which
was passed in the Full Bench decision of the
High Court and was confirmed by the Supreme
Court has made her submission and has
submitted that the case of the petitioner was at
similar footing with the case of Meghu Seikh.
She submitted that the very fact that the
petitioner had got regular scale did not mean that
the petitioner had been regularized. She still
further submitted that the petitioner was an
employee of the Project and not of the
Company. Still further learned counsel for the
respondents, Ms. Taniya Pandey submitted that
in pursuance of the law laid down in Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1 regularization could be done
only if there was a statutory rule framed in that
regard.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and after having perused the
written arguments which the parties have filed
(which are now made part of the record) and
also upon going through the award and the
various pleadings which have been exchanged
by the parties, this Court finds that no
interference is warranted in the award. The
Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR
2007 SC 2230 (Lal Mohammad and Ors. vs.
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and
Ors.) has categorically laid down that when a
workman is employed for a particular project,
the services of that employee came to an end
when the project was over and, therefore,
could not be given a permanent status. It has
also held that the workman could not be
considered as employee of the company under
which various other projects ran. This Court
also finds that there was similarity in the case
of the petitioner and the case of Meghu Seikh.

15. Under such circumstances, no
interference is warranted in the writ petition
and
the
writ
petition
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A595
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 20880 of 2020

Ram Sagar @ Sagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Babu Lal Ram, Sri Jyoti Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

A. Civil Law - UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 189 & 190 - UP Revenue Rules, 2016
- R. 57 - Fishery lease - Auction - Highest
bidder defaulted in depositing the bid amount -
Next bidder (petitioner) permitted to deposit
25% bid amount - Allotment claimed by the
next bidder - Entitlement - Held, when as per
the auction, the highest bidder could not
deposit the 25 per cent of the bid amount
which was required to be deposited by him
then there was no other option left with the
authorities but to re-auction the pond - The
next bidder definitely had no right to claim for
getting allotment - High Court directed to
return back the amount deposited by the next
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bidder with an interest of 12 per cent per
annum (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Writ C No. 3997 of 2017; Sanjay Prasad Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. decided on 25.01.2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Brief facts of the case are that an
advertisement with regard to auction of the pond
over Plot No.353 situate at Village Daulatpur,
Tehsil- Meh Nagar, Police Station- Meh Nagar,
District- Azamgarh, was published in the
newspaper on 24.07.2019. The auction took place
on 28.08.2019 in which there were three bidders,
namely, Dinesh, Rakesh and Ram Sagar (the
petitioner). Dinesh made a bid of Rs.1,10,000/- per
year; Rakesh made a bid of Rs.1,05,000/- per year
and the petitioner Ram Sagar made a bid of
Rs.12,000/- per year.

2. Admittedly, amongst the various bids, the
bid of Rakesh was found to be the highest and,
therefore, he was required to deposit 25 per cent of
the bid amount. When the highest bidder Rakesh
and the second highest bidder Dinesh did not
deposit the amount, the petitioner claimed a right
to get the allotment as he was the only bidder who
was then available for getting the allotment.
Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit the
amount as per the bid and on 24.10.2019, the
petitioner also deposited Rs.1,20,000/- for a
complete tenure of ten years as is clear from the
receipt which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the
writ petition. Thereafter, it appears that various
reports were called for by the Tehsildar and the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Revenue Inspector
gave a report on 21.10.2019 that the petitioner was
the only bidder available after Rakesh and Dinesh
who had not deposited the required amounts as per
their bids and therefore, the petitioner was entitled
for the allotment. On the report of the Revenue
Inspector, however the Tehsildar upon considering
the various provisions of law wrote to the SubDivisional Magistrate that the auction could not be
made in favour of the petitioner as the actual
bidders i.e. Rakesh and Dinesh had failed to
deposit the amount and, therefore, a re-sale had to
take place. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on
02.09.2020 again asked for a comment. In the
meantime, the petitioner approached the High
Court with a prayer that the Plot No.353 which
contained the pond be settled in his favour as he
was the only bidder available after the bidders
Rakesh and Dinesh had left without depositing any
money which they were required to deposit after
making the bid.

3. Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned
Standing Counsel in reply referred to the
contents of counter affidavit and supplementary
counter affidavit and specially referred to the
furd neelami dated 28.08.2019. From the furd
neelami, he pointed out that there were three
bidders Rakesh, Dinesh and Ram Sagar (the
petitioner). He submitted that after Rakesh and
Dinesh whose bids were higher than the
petitioner Ram Sagar had failed to deposit the
bid amount then under law, a fresh auction had
to take place and allotment could not be done in
favour of the petitioner. In support of his
submission, learned Standing Counsel drew the
attention of the Court to Rule 57 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and therefore, for
ready reference, the same is reproduced
hereunder:

"57. Lease of smaller Tanks (Section
61). - (1) Where the area of a tank referred to in
section 61(b) exceeds 0.5 acre but does not
exceeds 5 acres, the Samiti shall let out the same
for fishing purposes or for growing Singhara
with the prior approval of the Sub-Divisional
Officer in accordance with the following
procedure.

(2) For the purposes of letting such
tanks, a camp shall be organized at the Tahsil
11 All. Ram Sagar @ Sagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
597
level, about which wide publicity shall be given
by publishing the date, time and place of the
camp in at least one Hindi newspaper having
wide circulation in the area.

(3) The Chairman, the Secretary and
an officer not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar
shall be present at such camp meetings. If, more
than one Gram Panchayats are involved, the
Chairmen and Secretaries of all the Samitees
concerned shall attend such meetings.

(4) With the help of the representative
of the fishermen community, to be appointed by
the Collector for each Tahsil, the Secretary shall
prepare a list of eligible persons who may be
allotted the tank under reference, in accordance
with the order of preference specified in sub-rule
(5).

(5) The eligibility list of prospective
lessees shall be prepared in accordance with the
following order of preference:-

(a)
Fishermen
residing
in
the
concerned Gram Panchayat;

(b) Members of the S.C.,S.T., Other
Backward Classes or persons of General
category living below poverty line residing in
the Gram Panchayat.

(c)
Fishermen
residing
in
the
concerned Nyaya Panchayat Circle;

(d)
Fishermen
residing
in
the
concerned Development Block :

Explanation. - For the purposes of
this rule and Rule 58, the expression
'Fishermen' means any person belonging to
the community of Kewat, Mallah, Nishad,
Bind, Dheemar, Kashyap, Vatham, Raikwar,
Manjhee, Godia, Kahar, Tureha or Turaha or
any other person traditionally engaged in the
fishing profession.

(6) The persons referred to in any of
the preceding clause of sub-rule (5) shall be
entitled to the lease of such tank to the
exclusion of those specified in the succeeding
clauses.

(7) If the list of eligible persons
prepared under sub-rule (4) consists of more
than one person, then an auction shall be
held on the spot in which only those shall be
allowed to participate whose names are
included in such list. If there is only one
person eligible for the lease aforesaid, the
lease shall be granted on the annual rent of
the amount fix by the State Government from
time to time which shall not be less than Rs.
1000/- and shall not exceed Rs.2000/- per
acre.

(8) The provisions of Sections 189
and 190 of the Code shall apply to every
auction under this rule.

(9) When the amount of the highest
bid has been deposited, the eligibility List, the
Bid Sheet and a report about the deposit of the
bid amount duly signed by the Chairman,
Secretary and the revenue officer referred to
in sub-rule (3) shall be forwarded to the SubDivisional Officer for his approval.

(10) If the Sub-Divisional Officer is
satisfied that the decision to let the tank is in
accordance with the provisions of these rules,
he shall accord his approval and shall return
the papers to the Samiti.

(11) If the Sub-Divisional Officer
approves the proposal, the papers shall be
returned to the Samiti and a Deed of Lease shall
be executed in R.C. Form-15 which shall be
registered under the Registration Act, 1908.
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(12) Every such lease shall be
executed for a period of five years and the
same shall not be renewed or extended.

(13) The lessee may use the tank
allotted to him for the purpose of fishing or
producing
other
aquatic
produce
or
vegetables.

(14) If during the period of lease, the
lessee commits any breach of the terms and
conditions of such lease, the Sub-Divisional
Officer may cancel the lease after issuing a
show cause notice to the lessee.

(15) During the period of lease the
rights of the local residents to use the tank for
purposes of washing clothes, watering the
cattle, digging out earth for purposes of
pottery or the likes shall remain undisturbed."

4. He further submitted that as per Rule
57(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,
the provisions of Sections 189 and 190 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were applied to
every auction. For ready reference, Sections
189 and 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
are also being reproduced hereunder:-

"189. Deposit by purchaser and resale on default. - (1) The person declared to
be the purchaser shall be required to deposit
immediately twenty five percent of the amount
of his bid, and in default of such deposit, the
property shall be forthwith re-sold, and such
person shall be liable for the expenses
incurred on the first sale and any deficiency in
price occurring on re-sale, and the same may
be recovered from him by the Collector as if
the same were an arrear of land revenue.

(2) A deposit under sub-section (1)
may be made either in cash or by a demand
draft (issued by a scheduled bank) or partly in
cash and partly by such draft.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this
section, the expression ''demand draft' includes
a banker's cheque.

190. Deposit of purchase money. -
The balance amount of the purchase money shall
be paid by the purchaser on or before the
fifteenth day from the date of the sale in the
office of the Collector or at the district treasury
or sub-treasury; and in case of default -

(a) the property shall be resold; and

(b) the deposit made under Section
189 shall be forfeited to the State Government."

5. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon
the provisions of Section 189 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and also a judgement of
this Court passed in Writ - C No.3997 of 2017
(Sanjay Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others) on
25.01.2017 and has submitted that if the bidder
defaults in depositing 25 per cent of the bid
amount then a re-auction/ re-sale had to take
place and no such person who might be there in
the auction list could claim any right of getting
any
allotment
whatsoever.
He,
therefore,
submitted that the petitioner's claim for
allotment could not be sustained and the writ
petition was liable to be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned
Standing Counsel and Sri Jyoti Srivastava,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha
and also after having gone through the relevant
provisions of Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 and Sections 189 and 190 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court is of the
view that when as per the auction, the highest
bidder Rakesh could not deposit the 25 per cent
of the bid amount which was required to be
deposited by him then there was no other option
left with the authorities but to re-auction the
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
599
pond. The petitioner definitely had no right to
claim for getting allotment. However, the Court
feels that the petitioner has been wronged in the
sense that he had been directed to deposit the bid
amount on 18.10.2019 which was also deposited
by him on 24.10.2019. This amount, the Court
definitely feels, is required to be returned to the
petitioner with an interest of 12 per cent per
annum.

7. The auction may now take place again
by the 30th of November, 2021. It is further
provided that the cost of re-auction as per
Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
shall be borne by the bidder Rakesh who had
defaulted. The amount along with interest which
had to be returned to the petitioner shall,
however, be returned by the State Exchequer.
The amount shall be reimbursed to the petitioner
before the next auction takes place.

8. With these observations/directions, the
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A599
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 21097 of 2021

Rajat Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Fundamental right - Right to carry Firearms -
Acquisition and possession of a firearms under
the Arms Act. 1959 is only a privilege and the
right to carry firearms does not come within
the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 17)
B. Arms Act, 1959 - Fire Arms license -
Entitlement - Threat to life and liberty -
Judicial review - Scope - Held, in a case where
discretion is conferred on a public authority to
grant or refuse a licence to hold a firearm, the
scope of judicial review is limited - Where the
relevant circumstances have been taken in
consideration
and
no
extraneous
considerations were taken into account, it
would be outside the purview of judicial review
of the Court to substitute its own opinion with
the opinion of the licensing authority - Primacy
is given to the threat assessment made by the
competent authorities - Absence of danger to
life and liberty of an applicant for firearms
license, can be a valid and lawful reason for
refusal of the firearm license - Mahipat Singh's
case followed and Bhoore Singh's case, Indal
Singh's case, Kammod Singh's case were held
per incuriam - High Court found no infirmity in
the order of licensing authority in refusing to
grant the licence. (Para 47, 51, 55 and 61)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Arvind Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012 76 ACC
457
2. Ram Chandra Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2010
(69) ACC 490
3. Brij Nandan Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors.; 2011 (75)
ACC 331
4. Writ C No. 17507 of 2019; Bhoore Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & anr. decided on 21.05.2019
5. Wrti C No. 17833 of 2019; Indal Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & anr. decided on 23.05.2019
6. Writ C No. 39541 of 2019; Kammod Vs St. of U.P
and other decided on 07.12.2019
7. St.of U.P. & ors. Vs Mahipat Singh; 2014 (2) ADJ
134
8. Kailash Nath & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; AIR 1985
All 291