# Satya Vrat Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34387 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-vrat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40663
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226 Fisheries
Rights-settlement of 10 years lease
through
auction-for
Rs.2
Lacs-1/4th
Rs.50,000/- deposited-person belonging
the fisheries community or S.C./S.T.
participated-D.M.
set
aside
on
the
ground such settlement against the full
Bench decision-reported 2005 (99) R.D.
823-Full Bench decided on 29.9.05-G.O.
dated 23.3.06-providing settlement of
lease through public auction by actionheld-based on wrong interpretation of
Full Bench-shall not be given effectsettlement
in
question-held-perfectly
valid.

Held: Para 11

Before parting with the case it is
essential to notice the Government Order
dated 23.2.2006, shown by the learned
Standing Counsel. The said Government
Order was issued after the aforesaid Full
Bench decision of Ram Kumar. In the
said Government Order it has been
mentioned that Full Bench authority of
Allahabad High Court in its judgment
dated 29.9.2005 in Writ Petition of Ram
Kumar vs. State has held that State
Government has got a right to settle the
2 All] Satya Vrat Singh V. State of U.P. and others
835
fisheries lease on the basis of priorities
in stead of public auction. The Full Bench
in para 29, which has been quoted
above, has clearly held that fisheries
lease should be settled through public
auction so that every person belonging
to the preferential category may know
about it and in case more than one
person
belonging
to
preferential
category are interested in taking the
lease, then it shall be settled through
auction. The Government Order dated
23.2.2006 is clearly based upon wrong
interpretation
of
the
Full
Bench
Authority. Hence it shall not be given
effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled
strictly in accordance with Full Bench
authority which clearly mandates that a
date
for
public
auction
shall
be
advertised in news paper. It is needless
to add that the advertisement must
appear at least about a week before the
date of auction. However, in case only
one person belonging to preferential
category
comes
forward
on
the
advertised date, then fisheries lease
shall be settled in his favour. In case
more than one person belonging to
preferential category as provided in the
Government Order dated 17.10.1995
intend to take the fisheries lease, then it
shall be settled through auction amongst
them. In case no person belonging to
preferential category is present on the
date of auction then general auction
amongst all the participants shall take
place.
Case law discussed:
2005 (99) R.D. 823 (FB) relied on

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
but one fact stands undisputed i.e. the
father of the petitioner had worked in the
respondents Corporation till his death.
Admittedly,
no
enquiry
has
been
conducted as to who is guilty of
interpolation. The ex-parte enquiry report
dated 5th August, 2004 has neither been
appended with the writ petition by the
respondents nor has been shown before
this Court.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the petitioner can not be penalized for any
alleged interpolation in the service record
by some unknown person. What is the
material is the fact that the father of the
petitioner died in harness. There is no
illegality in the appointment of the
petitioner who has worked in the
department for last about 14 years when
his
services
have
suddenly
been
terminated
without
affording
an
opportunity. The impugned order of
termination is therefore out and out,
illegal, arbitrary and without reasonable
basis. A right of livelihood has accrued to
the petitioner as enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution, which can not be
taken away without proper opportunity of
hearing
even
otherwise
in
the
circumstances of this case.

No other point has been argued
before me.

8. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order is quashed. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34387 of 2006

Satya Vrat Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Durga Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Misra
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226 Fisheries
Rights-settlement of 10 years lease
through
auction-for
Rs.2
Lacs-1/4th
Rs.50,000/- deposited-person belonging
the fisheries community or S.C./S.T.
participated-D.M.
set
aside
on
the
ground such settlement against the full
Bench decision-reported 2005 (99) R.D.
823-Full Bench decided on 29.9.05-G.O.
dated 23.3.06-providing settlement of
lease through public auction by actionheld-based on wrong interpretation of
Full Bench-shall not be given effectsettlement
in
question-held-perfectly
valid.

Held: Para 11

Before parting with the case it is
essential to notice the Government Order
dated 23.2.2006, shown by the learned
Standing Counsel. The said Government
Order was issued after the aforesaid Full
Bench decision of Ram Kumar. In the
said Government Order it has been
mentioned that Full Bench authority of
Allahabad High Court in its judgment
dated 29.9.2005 in Writ Petition of Ram
Kumar vs. State has held that State
Government has got a right to settle the
2 All] Satya Vrat Singh V. State of U.P. and others
835
fisheries lease on the basis of priorities
in stead of public auction. The Full Bench
in para 29, which has been quoted
above, has clearly held that fisheries
lease should be settled through public
auction so that every person belonging
to the preferential category may know
about it and in case more than one
person
belonging
to
preferential
category are interested in taking the
lease, then it shall be settled through
auction. The Government Order dated
23.2.2006 is clearly based upon wrong
interpretation
of
the
Full
Bench
Authority. Hence it shall not be given
effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled
strictly in accordance with Full Bench
authority which clearly mandates that a
date
for
public
auction
shall
be
advertised in news paper. It is needless
to add that the advertisement must
appear at least about a week before the
date of auction. However, in case only
one person belonging to preferential
category
comes
forward
on
the
advertised date, then fisheries lease
shall be settled in his favour. In case
more than one person belonging to
preferential category as provided in the
Government Order dated 17.10.1995
intend to take the fisheries lease, then it
shall be settled through auction amongst
them. In case no person belonging to
preferential category is present on the
date of auction then general auction
amongst all the participants shall take
place.
Case law discussed:
2005 (99) R.D. 823 (FB) relied on

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.P. Misra, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

2. On 6.7.2006 it had been indicated
in the order sheet that as pure question of
law
regarding
interpretation
and
application of Full Bench authority of this
Court reported in Ram Kumar vs. State of
U.P. 2005 (99) R.D. 823 was involved,
hence no counter affidavit was required.

3. The matter pertains to grant of 10
years lease for fishing rights in respect of
pond comprised in plot no.419 area 1.335
hectares situate in village Dandopur
Tahsil Padrauna district Kushi Nagar.
Petitioner was granted 10 years lease for
fishing rights in respect of the pond in
dispute as he was the highest bidder in the
auction held on 23.1.2006. Petitioner's
bid was for Rs.Two lacs for ten years.
Petitioner also deposited 1/4th of the said
amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-. It has also been
stated that no person belonging to
fishermen's community or scheduled
caste/scheduled tribes participated in the
auction proceedings. Deputy Collector
Padrauna through order dated 2.3.2006 set
aside the auction on the ground that it was
hit by the aforesaid Full Bench authority.
It was also observed in the said order that
earlier Pradhan had himself granted the
lease of the pond in question to another
person. As far as the said aspect is
concerned, it was not at all relevant, as
Pradhan had no authority to settle the
lease with any one and the same having
been done without any auction etc. was
illegal. The said lease by Pradhan was
also not subjudice before the Deputy
Collector.

4. It may be mentioned that
petitioner has also filed Original Suit No.
54 of 2006 in this regard.

5. In the aforesaid Full Bench
authority in para 29 it has clearly been
held that fisheries lease shall be settled
through auction after due advertisement in
news paper. It has also been held in the
said authority that no renewal must be
granted. The Government Order dated
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
17.10.1995 dealing with manner of
settlement
of
fisheries
lease
and
preference for such settlement with
certain
castes/communities
has
been
approved subject to these two exceptions.
The said Government Order has been
upheld by the Full Bench in respect of
priorities to members belonging to such
casts, who are traditionally carrying on
the fisheries business. Para 29 of Ram
Kumar's Full Bench decision is quoted
below:

"29. The settlement of fishery
according to the directions under section
126 of 1950 Act is settlement of property
vested in the Gaon Sabha which should be
done in a prescribed manner giving
opportunity to all eligible persons to
participate. The Revenue Officers, who
are entrusted with duty, shall ensure
proper advertisement of the date of
settlement so that all persons who are
eligible to participate have sufficient
notice of the proposed settlement. The
Government order itself contemplates
"wide publicity". The Sub-Divisional
Officer himself should see that wide
publicity
is
made.
Now
a
days
newspapers having wide circulation in the
area is surest mode to publish a proposed
settlement. As a general rule the subDivisional Officer should publish in a
newspaper having wide circulation of the
settlement of fishing right to enable all
concerned to participate. As observed
above, in the event there are more than
one person in one particular category of
preference, the Sub-Divisional Officer is
not prohibited to award the said fishing
right by inviting bids by tender or
auction."

6. However, if no person belonging
to the preferential category as mentioned
in
the
Government
order
dated
17.10.1995 is interested in taking the
lease then the pond can not be left vacant.
It will have to be given to any other
person who is interested in taking the
fisheries lease and is highest bidder in the
open auction. According to the Full
Bench even if in the preferential category
more than one person are interested, then
the lease shall be settled through auction.

7. Amount of Rs.2 lacs for 10 years
offered by the petitioner was more than
sufficient. Learned Standing Counsel has
stated that in the auction no person
belonging to the preferential category as
per the aforesaid Government Order
participated.

8. In view of the above, auction in
favour of the petitioner should have been
confirmed.

9. Accordingly writ petition is
allowed. Order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector dated
2.3.2006 is set aside. It is directed that the
auction in favour of the petitioner held on
23.1.2006
shall
be
confirmed
and
consequent
formalities
shall
be
completed.

10. In view of the above order, the
suit filed by the petitioner has become
meaningless. He must withdraw the same.

11. Before parting with the case it is
essential to notice the Government Order
dated 23.2.2006, shown by the learned
Standing Counsel. The said Government
Order was issued after the aforesaid Full
Bench decision of Ram Kumar. In the
said Government Order it has been
mentioned that Full Bench authority of
Allahabad High Court in its judgment
2 All] Smt. Simran Jeet Kaur V. State of U.P. and others
837
dated 29.9.2005 in Writ Petition of Ram
Kumar vs. State has held that State
Government has got a right to settle the
fisheries lease on the basis of priorities in
stead of public auction. The Full Bench in
para 29, which has been quoted above,
has clearly held that fisheries lease should
be settled through public auction so that
every person belonging to the preferential
category may know about it and in case
more than one person belonging to
preferential category are interested in
taking the lease, then it shall be settled
through auction. The Government Order
dated 23.2.2006 is clearly based upon
wrong interpretation of the Full Bench
Authority. Hence it shall not be given
effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled
strictly in accordance with Full Bench
authority which clearly mandates that a
date for public auction shall be advertised
in news paper. It is needless to add that
the advertisement must appear at least
about a week before the date of auction.
However, in case only one person
belonging to preferential category comes
forward on the advertised date, then
fisheries lease shall be settled in his
favour. In case more than one person
belonging to preferential category as
provided in the Government Order dated
17.10.1995 intend to take the fisheries
lease, then it shall be settled through
auction amongst them. In case no person
belonging to preferential category is
present on the date of auction then general
auction amongst all the participants shall
take place.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13478 of 2006

Smt. Simran Jeet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Shishir Tandon
Sri Anil Kr. Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991Section-8 B (2) proviso B Dispension of
Departmental Enquiry-Petitioner a sub
inspector-suspended on the basis of
episode telecast by News Channel-in
preliminary
enquiry
found
guilty
of
demand of illegal gratifications-without
holding enquiry decision for dismissalheld-contrary
to
the
provisions
of
Section
8
(2)
proviso
(B)-can
not
sustained-direction issued to conclude
the
departmental
enquiry
within
3
months.

Held: Para 6

From the impugned order it is apparent
that the mandate of Rule 8 (2) Proviso
(B) has not been carried out and
absolutely no reasons for dispensation
with the departmental enquiry before
dismissing the petitioner from service
have been recorded in writing as to why
it was not reasonably practicable to hold
such an enquiry In such circumstances
the
order
not
being
supported
by
sufficient
reasons
recorded
for
dispensing with the enquiry is hit by Rule