# Ravi Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 760
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2259 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47262
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitutional Validity - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006: Section 54, 61, 59,
189, 190, 233 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 - Rule 57 Sub- Rules (4), (5), (7),
(8), (11), Rule 58.

The impugned condition (of making full
deposit of the lease rent of ten years,
7 All. Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
within 15 days of the acceptance of bid)
cannot
be
termed
arbitrary
or
discriminatory or in any way violative of
Art. 14 of Consitution of India - The thrust
of the argument is not that Ss. 189 and 190 are
ultra vires per se but that they should not be
applied on settlement of fishery lease because
such leases are reserved for marginal sections
of the society and therefore applying onerous
condition laid in Ss. 189 and 190 of the Code,
2006, through Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016, for
settlement of fishery lease through auction, is
arbitrary and as such violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India.

Underlying principle enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution - All persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the
same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another
if as regards the subject-matter of the
legislation their position is substantially the
same. (Para 14)

The impugned condition applies only in a
situation where settlement of the fishery lease is
through an auction which is when there are
more than one claimants in that class of
claimants and it applies equally to all in that
class. Therefore, when members of that
particular class submit their bid with prior
knowledge of what they would require to meet,
their financial bids would logically be as per
their financial capacity.

B. The provisions of Rule 57 of the Rules,
2016 when read as a whole would reflect
that they do a balancing act. On one hand
they provide a list of persons eligible to
participate in the process of grant of fishery
lease by ensuring exclusion of non-serious
bidders so as to make the bidding process
meaningful and effective, and thereby subserve
the avowed object of Art. 38 of the Constitution
and, on the other, by making the provisions of
Ss. 189 and 190 of the Code, 2006 applicable,
by virtue of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016, they
seek to serve the larger public interest of
securing higher revenue for the State. (Para
13, 14)

The provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules,
2016 are not ultra vires Article 21 of the
Constitution - Fishery lease is obtained not
merely to earn a livelihood for survival but
for
profits,
inasmuch
as
it
has
a
commercial value. The commercial value of
the fishery lease cannot be denied and the mere
fact that there are more claimants than one for
the lease in issue lends credence to its
commercial potential. The bidding process
commences only when there are more eligible
claimants than one. As the bidders are all of the

## Text

760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or similar issues. If the latter bench wants
to take a different view than that taken by
the earlier bench, the proper course is for it
to refer the matter to a larger bench.

44. In the case of Safia Bee Vs.
Mohd. Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi41
held as under:-

Para No. 27 - The learned Judges
were not right in over-ruling the statement
of the law by a Co-ordinate Bench of equal
strength. It is an accepted rule or principle
that the statement of the law by a Bench is
considered binding on a Bench of the same
or lesser number of Judges. In case of
doubt or disagreement about the decision of
the earlier Bench, the well accepted and
desirable practice is that the later Bench
would refer the case to a larger Bench.

Para No. 29 - In Central Board of
Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra and Anr.: (2005) 2
SCC 673, (para 12), a Constitution Bench
of this Court summed up the legal position
in the following terms:

(1) The law laid down by this
Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of
larger
strength
is
binding
on
any
subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal
strength.

(2) A Bench of lesser quorum
cannot disagree or dissent from the view of
the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum.
In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser
quorum can do is to invite the attention of
the Chief Justice and request for the matter
being placed for hearing before a Bench of
larger quorum than the Bench whose
decision has come up for consideration. It
will be open only for a Bench of co-equal
strength to express an opinion doubting the
correctness of the view taken by the earlier
Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the
matter may be placed for hearing before a
Bench consisting of a quorum larger than
the one which pronounced the decision
laying down the law the correctness of
which is doubted.

45. In view of the above exposition of
law of the Apex Court as well as Division
Bench and coordinate Bench of this Court,
which are binding on this Court, I am not
inclined to accord any relief to the
petitioners.

46. For the aforesaid reasons, all the
writ petition are dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A760
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ C No. 2259 of 2021

Ravi Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sandeep Kumar, Sri Karuna Nand Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitutional Validity - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006: Section 54, 61, 59,
189, 190, 233 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 - Rule 57 Sub- Rules (4), (5), (7),
(8), (11), Rule 58.

The impugned condition (of making full
deposit of the lease rent of ten years,
7 All. Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
within 15 days of the acceptance of bid)
cannot
be
termed
arbitrary
or
discriminatory or in any way violative of
Art. 14 of Consitution of India - The thrust
of the argument is not that Ss. 189 and 190 are
ultra vires per se but that they should not be
applied on settlement of fishery lease because
such leases are reserved for marginal sections
of the society and therefore applying onerous
condition laid in Ss. 189 and 190 of the Code,
2006, through Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016, for
settlement of fishery lease through auction, is
arbitrary and as such violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India.

Underlying principle enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution - All persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the
same situation, and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another
if as regards the subject-matter of the
legislation their position is substantially the
same. (Para 14)

The impugned condition applies only in a
situation where settlement of the fishery lease is
through an auction which is when there are
more than one claimants in that class of
claimants and it applies equally to all in that
class. Therefore, when members of that
particular class submit their bid with prior
knowledge of what they would require to meet,
their financial bids would logically be as per
their financial capacity.

B. The provisions of Rule 57 of the Rules,
2016 when read as a whole would reflect
that they do a balancing act. On one hand
they provide a list of persons eligible to
participate in the process of grant of fishery
lease by ensuring exclusion of non-serious
bidders so as to make the bidding process
meaningful and effective, and thereby subserve
the avowed object of Art. 38 of the Constitution
and, on the other, by making the provisions of
Ss. 189 and 190 of the Code, 2006 applicable,
by virtue of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016, they
seek to serve the larger public interest of
securing higher revenue for the State. (Para
13, 14)

The provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules,
2016 are not ultra vires Article 21 of the
Constitution - Fishery lease is obtained not
merely to earn a livelihood for survival but
for
profits,
inasmuch
as
it
has
a
commercial value. The commercial value of
the fishery lease cannot be denied and the mere
fact that there are more claimants than one for
the lease in issue lends credence to its
commercial potential. The bidding process
commences only when there are more eligible
claimants than one. As the bidders are all of the
same class, and they bid keeping in mind the
commercial interest that the proposed lease
would serve, they are free to submit their bids
as per their financial capacity. (Para 15)

C. The challenge laid to the impugned
provisions on the ground that they violate
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is
equally misconceived as they do not place
unreasonable restriction on the right to
carry
on
any
business,
trade
or
occupation. They only put a procedure in place
for acquiring a business interest from the State
which by no means can be termed arbitrary or
unreasonable. (Para 16)

D. It cannot be said that the impugned
condition defeats the object set out by
Rule 57(5) of the Rules, 2016. The
impugned condition applies only when there is
settlement by auction when there are more
claimants than one in the same class. (Para 17)

E. The petitioner participated in the bidding
process without a demur. The petitioner has not
at all demonstrated that before participating in the
bidding process he had registered his protest to the
impugned condition of the advertisement. It is only
after he committed default that he has challenged the
impugned condition of the advertisement. (Para 11,
18)

Writ petition dismissed.

Precedent followed:
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. St. of W.B. Vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC
75 (Para 14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Sandeep Kumar
for the petitioners; the learned standing
counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and
have perused the record.

2. At the outset, Sri Sandeep Kumar,
the learned counsel for the petitioners,
states that the cause of action to file the
present
petition
is
with
the
second
petitioner and, therefore, he prays to
withdraw this petition in so far as the
petitioner no.1 (Ravi Kumar) is concerned.

3. In view of the above, the petition of
petitioner no.1 (Ravi Kumar) is dismissed
as withdrawn. The petitioner no.2 (Thagai),
for the sake of convenience, would
hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.

4. In brief the facts giving rise to this
petition, as could be elicited from the
petition, are as follows: The petitioner
being member of fishermen community,
pursuant to an advertisement inviting bids
for settlement of fishery lease of Gaon
Sabha ponds for a period of ten years, after
depositing security amount of Rs.1.47 lacs,
participated
in
an
auction
held
on
30.09.2020. His bid, amongst four bidders,
at Rs.13.40 lacs, was highest for the pond
i.e. plot no.421 @ 1.137 hectare. Vide
condition no.2 of the advertisement,
provisions of sections 189 and 190 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short Code,
2006) were made applicable, which,
otherwise also, by virtue of sub-rule (8) of
Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 (for short Rules, 2016), were to apply.
As per those sections, the highest bidder is
required to deposit one-fourth of the bid
amount on the day of the auction and the
balance, three-fourth, within 15 days. On
failure
to
deposit,
there
are
penal
consequences including that of forfeiture of
the security amount. The condition no.2 of
the advertisement reiterates that position.
Admittedly, the petitioner could not fulfil
the condition of deposit, despite grant of
additional
time. Accordingly,
by
the
impugned notice dated 19.10.2020, the
petitioner was given 3 days time to make
deposit of the entire amount or to face
forfeiture of the security amount.

5. Through this petition, the petitioner
has sought quashing of the forfeiture notice
dated 19.10.2020 as well as condition no.2
of the advertisement and has also prayed
that the sub-rule (8) of Rule 57 of the
Rules, 2016, which provides that the
provisions of Sections 189 and 190 of the
Code, 2006 shall apply to every auction
under that rule, be declared ultra vires
Articles 14, 19, 21 and 38 of the
Constitution of India as also sub rules (5)
and (11) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016 and
the intention of the legislature reflected
from Section 175 of the Code, 2006.

6. Before we proceed to notice and
assess the merit of the submissions, it would
be apposite to notice the relevant provisions
of the Code, 2006 and the Rules, 2016
governing settlement of lease of tanks/ ponds
etc. Section 54 of the Code, 2006 declares,
inter alia, that all lakes, ponds and tanks, in
absence of establishment of right of any
person in or over the same, be the property of
the State Government. Section 59 of the
Code, 2006 empowers the State Government
to entrust, inter alia, tanks, ponds etc to a
Gram Panchayat for the purposes of
superintendence, preservation, management
7 All. Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763
and control in accordance with the provisions
of the Code, 2006. Section 61 of the Code,
2006 provides for management of village
tanks. It provides that where a tank in a
village is entrusted or deemed to be entrusted
in any Gram Panchayat under section 59,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in
any contract or grant or any law for the time
being in force, its management by such Gram
Panchayat shall be regulated by the following
conditions, namely-- (a) where the area of the
tank measures 0.5 acre or less, it shall be
reserved for public use by the inhabitants of
the village; (b) where the area of the tank
exceeds 0.5 acre, the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti shall, with the previous approval of
the Sub-Divisional Officer, let it out in the
manner prescribed. In the Explanation thereof
it is provided that for the purpose of the
section, the term ''tank', includes talab, pond,
pokhar and other land covered with water.
Section 233 of the Code, 2006 empowers the
State Government to make rules for carrying
out the purposes of the Code, 2006. Subsection (2) of section 233 provides that
"without generality of the foregoing power,
such rules may also provide for-- (i) to
(viii)......; (ix) the protection, preservation and
disposal of properties belonging to or vested
in the State Government, Gram Panchayat or
other local authority, including determination
of
compensation
for
damages
misappropriation or wrongful occupation
thereof; (xi) to (xiv).....; (xv) the procedure
for
granting
lease
by
the
Collector,
cancellation of such lease and eviction of
unauthorised occupants from the land
belonging to the State Government, Gram
Panchayat and local authority; (xvi) to
(xix)....; (xx) the regulation of fishing in
rivers, lakes, ponds and tanks entrusted to a
Gram Panchayat or other local authority;
(xxi).....; (xxii) any other matter for which
rules are required to be or may be made
under the Code, 2006."

7. Pursuant to the power conferred by
section 233 of the Code, 2006, the State
Government notified Rules, 2016. Rules 57
and 58 thereof deal with lease of tanks.
Rule 57 deals with lease of smaller tanks,
that is where the size of the tank exceeds
0.5 acre but does not exceed 5 acres
whereas Rule 58 deals with lease of bigger
tanks where the area exceeds 5 acres.

8. As the present case concerns a
smaller tank below 5 acres in area, the lease
of such tank is to be accorded in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 57
of the Rules, 2016. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 57
provides that where the area of a tank
exceeds 0.5 acre but does not exceed 5
acres, the Samiti shall let out the same for
fishing purposes or for Singhara with the
prior approval of the Sub-Divisional
Officer in accordance with the procedure
prescribed. Sub Rule (2) provides for
organisation of a camp at the tehsil level,
about which wide publicity is to be made.
Sub Rule (4) provides for preparation of a
list of eligible persons in accordance with
the order of preference specified in sub-rule
(5). Sub Rule (5) provides that 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 SC, ST
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. Sub
Rule (6) provides that the persons referred
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to in any of the preceding clause of subrule (5) shall be entitled to the lease of such
tank to the exclusion of those specified in
the succeeding clauses. Sub-Rule (7)
provides as follows: "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 fixed by
the Government from time-to-time which
shall not be less than Rs.1000/- and shall
not exceed Rs.2000/- per acre." Sub-Rule
(8) provides as follows: "The provisions of
Sections 189 and 190 of the Code shall
apply to every auction under this rule."
Sub-Rules (9) to (11) is in respect of the
formalities required for approval/ execution
and registration of the lease. Sub Rule (12)
provides that every such lease shall be
executed for a period of ten years and the
same shall not be renewed or extended. Sub
Rules (13) to (15) are not being discussed
because they are not relevant for the
purposes of deciding this case.

Section 189 of the Code, 2006
provides as follows:

"Deposit by purchaser and resale on default.-- (1) The person declared
to be the purchaser shall be required to
deposit immediately twenty-five per cent 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."

Section 190 of the Code, 2006
reads thus:

"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 re-sold;
and

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

9. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the lease of
smaller tanks for the purposes of fishing
rights as per sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule
57 of the Rules, 2016 is reserved for the
members of fishermen community and
members of the SC/ ST or other backward
classes or persons of General category
living below poverty line, which is to
enable marginal sections of the society to
earn their livelihood and, therefore, the
stringent condition imposed by Sections
189 and 190 of the Code, 2006 read with
the Rules, 2016 is ultra vires Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and is also
arbitrary as it defeats the avowed object of
Article 38 of the Constitution of India and
as such is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Further, by placing
an onerous condition of making full deposit
of the lease rent of ten years, within 15
days of the acceptance of bid, an
unreasonable condition is imposed on the
fundamental right to carry on trade or
business and as such it violates Article
7 All. Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765
19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In
addition thereto, it has been argued that as
per sub rule (7) of Rule 57 of the Rules,
2016 if there is just a solitary eligible
person, annual rent is charged but,
interestingly, in the case of settlement by
auction the entire money for ten years lease
is charged within fifteen days which defies
logic and makes the provision completely
arbitrary.

10. Per Contra, the learned standing
counsel has submitted that the provisions
of sections 189 and 190 of the Code, 2006
are backed by sound logic as they serve
the public interest at large by ensuring
exclusion of non serious bidders so as to
make the bidding process meaningful and
effective. They do not violate Article 14 of
the
Constitution
as
they
do
not
discriminate between members of the
same class. Rather they apply universally
to a common class of bidders. The
provisions are also not onerous because
they apply to a situation when more than
one eligible person come forward to stake
a claim and therefore the bidding is inter
se a class of persons to find out the
winner. Moreover, a bidder is fully aware
of the rigours of the bidding outcome and
with open eyes he participates in the
bidding process therefore, he cannot
complain about the conditions being
onerous. In the instant case, there were
four persons who participated in the
auction. They all participated with open
eyes as to the conditions applicable on
auction. Under the circumstances, if the
petitioner had difficulty in arranging for
the funds he should have abstained from
bidding. But as he did participate with
open eyes he cannot now complain of the
conditions being onerous.

11. We have given thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions.
Before we proceed to test the merit of the
submissions, we would like to put on
record that the petitioner has not at all
demonstrated that before participating in
the bidding process he had registered his
protest to the impugned condition of the
advertisement. It is only after he committed
default
that
he
has
challenged
the
impugned condition of the advertisement.

12. It is well settled that vires of a
legislation i.e. an Act can be questioned on
limited
grounds
such
as
legislative
incompetence of the legislature to legislate
on the subject with which the Act deals or
that the Act or its provisions violate the
provisions of the Constitution or any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution of India. The vires of
a subordinate legislation such as Rules or
Regulations in addition to the grounds
above, can be questioned on the ground
that they are in conflict with the provisions
of the parent Act or are beyond the scope of
rule making power conferred by the Act.

13. In this case, there is no challenge
to the legislative competence of the State
legislature or to the rule-making power of
the State Government. Moreover, sections
189 and 190 of the Code, 2006 are general
provisions applicable to auction sale. The
conditions imposed therein on the bidders
is based on sound everlasting logic which is
to ensure that non serious bidders do not
get into the fray and derail the bidding
process. They, therefore, by no means can
be termed arbitrary or discriminatory more
so when they apply equally to the bidder
class. Otherwise also, the thrust of the
argument is not that sections 189 and 190
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are ultra vires per se but that they should
not be applied on settlement of fishery
lease because such leases are reserved for
marginal sections of the society and
therefore applying onerous condition laid in
Sections 189 and 190 of the Code, 2006,
through Rule 57 (8) of the Rules, 2016, for
settlement of fishery lease through auction,
is arbitrary and as such violative of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

14. No doubt, at first blush, it may
appear that the impugned condition of the
advertisement is quite harsh, particularly,
when we notice it from the point of view of
those who are eligible to bid. But then it
applies equally to all within the same class
of persons and comes into play only when
there are more claimants than one in that
class. More over, it serves the object of
generating a fair competition within that
class to secure more revenue for the State.
At
this
stage,
we
may
notice
the
observations made by Hon'ble B. K.
Mukherjea, J. while authoring his opinion
separately, though concurring with the
majority view, in the landmark seven
judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in
State of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali
Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75, on the
underlying principle enshrined in Article 14
of the Constitution. His Lordship observed:
"It can be taken to be well settled that the
principle underlying the guarantee in
Article 14 is not that the same rules of law
should be applicable to all persons within
the Indian territory or that the same
remedies should be made available to them
irrespective of differences of circumstances.
It only means that all persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges
conferred
and
liabilities
imposed. Equal laws would have to be
applied to all in the same situation, and
there should be no discrimination between
one person and another if as regards the
subject matter of the legislation their
position is substantially the same." When
we test the impugned condition no.2 of the
advertisement on the anvil of the legal
principle noticed above, we find that the
impugned condition applies only in a
situation where settlement of the fishery
lease is through an auction which is when
there are more than one claimants in that
class of claimants and it applies equally to
all in that class. Therefore, when members
of that particular class submit their bid with
prior knowledge of what they would
require to meet, their financial bids would
logically be as per their financial capacity.
Hence, the impugned condition cannot be
termed arbitrary or discriminatory or in any
way violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In fact, the provisions
of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016 when read as
a whole would reflect that they do a
balancing act. On the one hand they
provide a list of persons eligible to
participate in the process of grant of fishery
lease and thereby subserve the avowed
object of Article 38 of the Constitution and,
on the other, by making the provisions of
Sections 189 and 190 of the Code, 2006
applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (8) of Rule
57 of the Rules, 2016, they seek to serve
the larger public interest of securing higher
revenue for the State. We are therefore of
the considered view that neither Section
189 or Section 190 of the Code, 2006 nor
Rule 57 (8) of Rules, 2016 is ultra vires
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For
the same reasons, the condition no.2 of the
advertisement, which seeks to apply subrule (8) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016, is
not arbitrary or in any manner violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.

15. In so far as the submission that the
provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016
7 All. Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
are
ultra
vires Article
21
of
the
Constitution
is
concerned,
that
is
completely misconceived because fishery
lease is obtained not merely to earn a
livelihood for survival but for profits,
inasmuch as it has a commercial value.
The commercial value of the fishery lease
cannot be denied and the mere fact that
there are more claimants than one for the
lease in issue lends credence to its
commercial
potential.
The
bidding
process commences only when there are
more eligible claimants than one. As the
bidders are all of the same class, and they
bid keeping in mind the commercial
interest that the proposed lease would
serve, they are free to submit their bids as
per their financial capacity. Hence, we are
of the considered view that neither the
impugned
Rule
nor
the
impugned
Section(s) or the impugned condition of
the advertisement violates Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.

16. The challenge laid to the
impugned provisions on the ground that
they violate Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution is equally misconceived as
they do not place unreasonable restriction
on the right to carry on any business,
trade or occupation. They only put a
procedure in place for acquiring a
business interest from the State which by
no means can be termed arbitrary or
unreasonable.

17. A feeble attempt was made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner to
demonstrate that the onerous condition
defeats the very purpose enshrined in
sub-rule (5) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2006
but as we have noticed that the impugned
condition applies only when there is
settlement by auction when there are
more claimants than one in the same
class, it cannot be said that the impugned
condition defeats the object set out by
sub-rule (5) of Rule 57 of the Rules,
2016.

18. For all the reasons stated above
and by keeping in mind that the petitioner
participated
in
the
bidding
process
without a demur, we are of the considered
view that the petitioner has not made out
a case for interference. The petition lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A767
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 41929 of 2018

Ram Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satya Prakash Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Saurabh Kumar

A. Civil Law - Permission for transfer of
land - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 -
U.P. Revenue Code 2006 - Section 98 -
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Section 2 -
The State cannot deprive the petitioner of
his rights over the land in dispute merely
because it has chosen not to implement
the directions issued by this Court 24
years ago. This Court finds itself unable to
either sustain or countenance the impugned
decision which is merely the result of the State