# Sururul Hasan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 24628 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sururul-hasan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45283
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Fishery Right in respect of
pond - Allotment - Validity of Auction
process
-
Government
Order
dated
27.08.2018 - Clause 6 - In the first round of
tender process only fisheries cooperative
societies of the village panchayat or any of the
village panchayat of development block in
which territory of reservoir extends can only
apply - Admittedly the respondent as an
individual neither belongs to the village nor,
development block in question nor, the
cooperative society is confined to the village or
development
block
having
stretches
of
reservoir (pond) in question - Respondent does
not fulfill criterion, hence he could not have
participated in the first round of tender
process. (Para 10, 14 and 15)

B. Civil Law-Allotment process of Fishery
Rights - Mandatory nature of Rider for
different round - Government Order dated
27.08.2018 - Clause 6 and 12 - Clause 12 of
the manual carves out an exception to Clause 6
but with the rider that there has to be decision
by the Chairman of the Auction Committee -
While applications for different round of tender
process falling in different category, can be
invited and admitted at the same time
irrespective of the rounds advertised and
license can be given to the highest bidder
following preferences of the category but in
that regard a decision has to be taken by the
Chairman of the Auction Committee - The rider
given thereunder is mandatory. (Para 17)

C. Civil Law-Allotment process of Fishery
Rights - Process of Tender Application -
By Cooperative Society - Clause 28 of G.O.
dated 27.08.2018 - Mandatory requirement of
Pass book and Balance amount - It is condition
precedent in a sense that a pre-requisite for
tender application is that it should be submitted
alongwith photocopy of the passbook which
should show balance amount at par with
reserved price fixed in the notice inviting
tender - It means that it included balance
amount should be there on the date of
submission of tender application - The bidding
process has been held quite contrary to the
procedure prescribed. (Para 22 and 27)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. Sururul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
305
Union of India and Others), to the
Director, Indian Institute of Technology,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi; the
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Union of India, New Delhi
and the Chairman, University Grants
Commission, New Delhi, for necessary
compliances.

217. The writ petition is finally
disposed of.
----------
(2020)02ILR A305

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 24628 of 2019

Sururul Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Firoz Haider, Sri Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vidya Kant Tripathi

A. Civil Law-Fishery Right in respect of
pond - Allotment - Validity of Auction
process
-
Government
Order
dated
27.08.2018 - Clause 6 - In the first round of
tender process only fisheries cooperative
societies of the village panchayat or any of the
village panchayat of development block in
which territory of reservoir extends can only
apply - Admittedly the respondent as an
individual neither belongs to the village nor,
development block in question nor, the
cooperative society is confined to the village or
development
block
having
stretches
of
reservoir (pond) in question - Respondent does
not fulfill criterion, hence he could not have
participated in the first round of tender
process. (Para 10, 14 and 15)

B. Civil Law-Allotment process of Fishery
Rights - Mandatory nature of Rider for
different round - Government Order dated
27.08.2018 - Clause 6 and 12 - Clause 12 of
the manual carves out an exception to Clause 6
but with the rider that there has to be decision
by the Chairman of the Auction Committee -
While applications for different round of tender
process falling in different category, can be
invited and admitted at the same time
irrespective of the rounds advertised and
license can be given to the highest bidder
following preferences of the category but in
that regard a decision has to be taken by the
Chairman of the Auction Committee - The rider
given thereunder is mandatory. (Para 17)

C. Civil Law-Allotment process of Fishery
Rights - Process of Tender Application -
By Cooperative Society - Clause 28 of G.O.
dated 27.08.2018 - Mandatory requirement of
Pass book and Balance amount - It is condition
precedent in a sense that a pre-requisite for
tender application is that it should be submitted
alongwith photocopy of the passbook which
should show balance amount at par with
reserved price fixed in the notice inviting
tender - It means that it included balance
amount should be there on the date of
submission of tender application - The bidding
process has been held quite contrary to the
procedure prescribed. (Para 22 and 27)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Civil Appeal No. 20854 of 2017; Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (1),
Bangalore v. M/s Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.
decided on 05.12.2017 by the Supreme Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. &
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Firoz Haider, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vidya Kant
Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nos. 5 and Dr. D.K.Tiwari, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

2.

Invoking
extra
ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution, the petitioner has
challenged the entire auction preceding
pursuant to notice inviting tender dated
25.06.2019 for allotment of fisheries rights
and consequential order dated 11.07.2019
in favour of respondent no. 4. The
petitioner since was not in possession of
the allotment order so he did not annex the
copy thereof but allotment order has been
brought on record in the counter affidavit
filed by respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 as
annexure 3 and the Court takes judicial
notice of the same.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are
that
Deputy
Director
Fisheries
of
Chitrakoot Division issued notice inviting
tender for allotment of fisheries rights vide
publication dated 25th June, 2019 in
respect of six ponds of the categories, 2,3
and 4. The controversy in the present
petition pertains to the auction proceedings
in respect of reservoir (pond) in category 4
situate
at
village
Manikpur
district
Chitrakoot. As per the advertisement total
area of the pond is 76.00 hectares and
reserved price for the auction fixed in the
advertisement was Rs. 1,45,000/-. In the
advertisement, it is categorically provided
that in case if the requisite tender
applications are not received or sufficient
price is not bidded in first round of
proceedings scheduled on 11th July, 2019,
second round of proceedings would take
place on 18th July, 2019 inviting fresh
tenders
and
if
the
second
round
proceedings met the same fate, third round
of proceedings would take place on 22nd
July, 2019 and then finally on 22nd July,
2019. According to the petitioner in the
very first round of the proceedings when
bid was opened on 11th July, 2019 it stood
granted on same day in favour of
respondent no. 5 which is a society
consisting of members not confined to the
village or development block but of
villages
at
Tehsil
level
forming
cooperative
society
having
area
of
operation at Tehsil level and which
according to the petitioner could not have
been permitted in the first round of
bidding process. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the
allotment of fisheries rights in respect of
pond in question awarded in favour of
respondent no. 5 is illegal.

4. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner questioning the auction
proceedings and consequential allotment
of the fisheries rights can be summarized
as under;

(a). As per the Fisheries Manual,
application to the auction proceedings
relating to the fisheries rights, the first
preference has to be given to the
cooperative societies consisting of the
villagers only of the gram panchayat
where the reservoir situates in the first
round and in case if applications are not
received from the cooperative societies of
the villagers or in case reserved price is
not met by the bidding societies the second
and third round of tender proceedings will
be held. The issue thus raised is that
respondent no. 5 being a cooperative
society having the area of operation
beyond limits of development block in
question
and
consisting
of
persons
belonging to other blocks, respondent no.
5 could not have participated in the first
round of tender proceedings, and his
tender application was liable to be renderd
2 All. Sururul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
unqualified/ineligible and thus was to be
rejected;

(b) The respondents could not
have justified accepting applications of the
bidders who could have been admitted
only in 2nd and 3rd round of the biddings
at the same time i.e. initially in the absence
of any order/direction to that effect by the
Chairman of the Auction Committee. He
submits that as per manual there has to be
an order in writing inviting all the bidders
eligible in several other stages like in 2nd,
3rd and 4th round, to apply their tender in
the very first round; and

(c)
As
per
the
manual,
participants societies must have requisite
fund in its account equivalent to the
reserved price shown in the advertisement
on the date of application of tender and
since respondent no. 5 did not have
requisite fund in its bank account, its
tender application was therefore not
submitted with requisite document, the
same ought to have been rejected at the
very threshold.

5. Per contra the arguments
advanced by learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel representing respondent
nos. 1 to 4 as well as counsel for the
respondent no. 5 are that procedure as
prescribed for under the manual as well as
Government order issued in that regard
dated 27th August, 2018 has been duly
complied with. He further argues, relying
upon the same very manual that relevant
clause 12 of the manual clearly stipulates
that applications of all the stages can be
invited in the very first stage. He submits
that complete transparency has been
adopted in allotment of fisheries rights and
authorities
have
not
committed
any
illegality much less a substantial one, as
alleged, so as to render the proceedings
vitiated in law.

6. Learned counsel for respondent
no. 5 has also placed reliance upon Clause
12 of the manual and submits that if
application was not invited in the very first
round by the respondents and petitioner
had submitted duly filled up tender
application, there was no fault on its part.
He further submits that since agreement
has been executed by means of the
allotment order, the petitioner, if has any
grievance, he can approach for common
law remedy instead of preferring present
writ petition.

7. Rival submissions fall for
consideration.

8. In order to put records straight, we
refer to our initial order dated 5.08.2019,
in which we had noticed the allegations
made in the writ petition regarding illegal
proceedings and accordingly directed the
learned
Standing
Counsel
to
have
instructions in the matter and matter was
fixed for 14.8.2019. However on 14th
August, 2019, the matter could not be
heard as lawyers were abstaining from the
work and, consequently, 21st August,
2019 was next date fixed and on
21.08.2019, respondent no. 3, Sub Director
of Fisheries Department, district Jhansi Sri
Gyanendra Singh, himself appeared before
the Court and it was stated that on 08th
August, 2019 an agreement had been
executed in favour of respondent no. 5.
Since respondent no. 5 himself was
present in Court on that day, we directed
the respondent no. 5 to engage counsel and
accordingly, adjourned the matter for 29th
August, 2019. On 29th August, 2019 since
lawyers were again abstaining from work
and officers summoned in the case were
present but it was informed by them that
pursuant
to
the
agreement,
no
consequential actions have been taken, so
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, we directed the parties to
maintain status quo fixing 5th September,
2019. On 5th September, 2019, since
original records were brought before this
Court, personal appearance of the officers
were dispensed giving them liberty to file
their response in the matter and fixed the
date for 16th September, 2019. On 16th
September, 2019 since counter was filed,
the petitioner was granted time to file
rejoinder and that is why the case is fixed
for today and matter is heard.

9. Now coming to the first argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent no. 5 could not
have been applicant in first round of
bidding process in response to the notice
inviting tender dated 25th June, 2019. we
consider it necessary first to refer the
relevant clause of manual that prescribes
for the procedure to be followed in the
matter of allotment of fisheries rights in
respect of a reservoir falling in 4th
category. We may notice also that 4th
category of reservoir is a pond of an area
of more than 5 hectares. Clause 6 of the
provisions is reproduced "hereunder:"

"6- fufonk ds izFke pØ eas lEcfU/kr
tyk'k; ds HkkSxksfyd {ks= esa iM+us okyh
xkaolHkk@xkao lHkkvksa rFkk lEcfU/kr fodkl [k.M
dh iathd`r eRL; thoh lgdkjh lfefr;ka ,oa Loa;
lgk;rk lewg gh Hkkx ysaxhA"

English Translation by this
Court:

"In the first round of the tender
proceedings
the
registered
fisheries
cooperative societies and cooperative
groups can participate who belong to the
Gaon Sabha/Gaon Sabhas of concerned
development block falling in the area
where territory of the pond falls."

10. It has been admitted and is
undisputed that water reservoir in question
is in village Manikpur and respondent no.
5 as an individual neither belongs to the
village nor, development block in question
nor, the cooperative society is confined to
the village or development block having
stretches of reservoir (pond) in question.

11. In paragraph 10 of the writ
petition categorical averment has been
made which is reproduced hereunder:

" That it is evidence on record
that the respondent is not belong to the
village or Block of the fisheries lease
reservoir (pond), therefore, the respondent
is not entitled to appear in the allotment
proceeding of fisheries lease reservoir
(pond) of Hela Reservoir and Manikpur
Reservoir (pond) under the government
Order.

The true copy of the registration
Certificate of the respondent as well as the
Government orders dated 16.01.2006 and
08.01.2019 are being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure-4 to this writ petition.
"

12. In reply to paragraph 10 of the
writ petition, respondent no. 5, the main
contesting party has averred as under in
paragraph 21:

" That the contents of paragraph
numbers 10 of the writ petition as stated is
incorrect hence denied. It is further
submitted that from the village/Block in
which the aforesaid reservoir situate only
one tender application of the petitioner
was existing. To generate the better
revenue against the allotment of the
aforesaid reservoir the competition was
required hence the second round tendering
was opened in which more than one tender
2 All. Sururul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
309
application was found. Amongst these 3,
the tender amount of the respondent no. 5
was highest and accordingly the allotment
has been made in his favour. In paragraph
no. 12 of the Manual Nivida Prapatra it
has been explained that the tender
application of all rounds may be opened
simulatneously."

13. Thus there is no specific denial
that respondent no. 5 does not belong to
the village or the territories with stretches
of
pond/reservoir
in
question
and,
therefore, all the averments made in
paragraph 10 of the writ petition stand
admitted.

14. However, we also made a pointed
query from learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5 as to whether respondent
no. 5 belongs to the village or the
development block or in other words his
society confined to the village Panchayat or
any of the village Panchyats in the
development block in question, he fairly
made an admission at the bar that respondent
no. 5 does not belong to the village nor,
development block nor, it is society confined
in its area of operation to the village
panchayat or development block only.

15. From perusal of clause 6 (supra) it
is clearly revealed that in the first round of
tender process only fisheries cooperative
societies of the village panchayat or any of
the village panchayat of development block
in which territory of reservoir extends can
only apply. Since respondent no. 5 does not
belong to or fulfills such a criterion, he could
not have participated in the first round of
tender process.

16. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, however, has vehemently urged
that in view of Clause 12 of the manual,
respondent no. 5 after applied in the first
round, his application was not liable to be
rejected. He further submits that even after
bid was accepted in the very first round of a
cooperative
society
who
could
have
participated in the 2nd and 3rd round, there
was no substantial error in view of Clause
14. In order to appreciate the argument of
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
Clause 12 of the manual is reproduced as
under:

"12- Js.kh&4 tyk'k;ksa ds lEcU/k esa
pdksa@ik=rk dh fufonk,a ,d lkFk ;k vyx&vyx
izkIr djus o [kksyus dh dk;Zokgh ,d gh frfFk ;k
vyx&vyx frfFk;ksa eas dh tk ldrh gSA bl lEcU/k
eas v/;{k uhyke lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA
'kklukns'k fnuakd 16-01-2006 esa fu/kkZfjr ik=rk ds
Øe esa bZ&fufonk,a [kksyh tk;sxh ,oa ojh;rk Øe eas
ftl pØ eas fu/kkZjr U;wure ewY; ls vf/kd fufonk
ewY; izkIr gks tk;sxk mlds i{k eas fufonk Lohd`r dh
tk;sxhA "

English Translation:

"In respect of 4th category
reservoir, the applications of various
stages/rounds as per the eligibility can be
conducted at the same time in one single
round and can be opened on one date or it
can be opened on different dates. In this
regard, the Chairman of the Auction
Committee shall take decision as per the
Government Order dated 16th January,
2006 which prescribes for eligibility. The
technical bids will be opened in order of
preference in which round they fall and in
the event of highest bid being proposed
such application would be granted."

17. Thus from bare reading of the
provision, it is clearly borne out that while
applications for different round of tender
process falling in different category, can
be invited and admitted at the same time
irrespective of the rounds advertised and
then final opening of the same can be done
simultaneously at one time and can of-
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
course, be opened on the very first round
and license can be given to the highest
bidder
following
preferences
of
the
category but in that regard a decision has
to be taken by the Chairman of the
Auction Committee. Thus Clause-12 of the
manual carves out an exception to Clause
6 but with the rider that there has to be
decision by the Chairman of the Auction
Committee. As Clause 12 stands as
exception to the general rule of procedure
prescribed for under Clause 6 the rider
given thereunder is mandatory to make it
happen . In none of the paragraphs of the
counter affidavit, it has been stated that
any such decision was taken by the
Chairman of the Auction Committee nor,
do we find anything from the records
which have been duly verified by the
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel, any such order is available which
may demonstrate that Chairman Auction
Committee had taken decision to invite all
applications meant for different stages, at
one point of time.

18. In such view of the matter,
therefore, merely because decision has
been taken in favour of respondent no. 5, it
cannot be presumed that Chairman of the
Auction Committee might have taken such
decision. Neither provision provides any
deeming clause for the purpose of raising
such a presumption nor, do we find any
reason for the same because Clause 12
stands only an exception to Clause 6 . Any
interpretation
as
suggested
by
the
Additional Chief Standing Counsel would
be doing violence to the spirit of Clause 6
and would amount also eroding the
principles of transparency which is not
only of paramount importance in matters
of public auction but is sine qua non in
matters of procedure to be followed in
public tender process.

19. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 5 supporting the
argument of Additional Chief Standing
Counsel has drawn our attention to the
document annexed as annexure CA-6 and
submits that item no. 1, and item no. 7
were the only societies belonging to the
village or the Gram Panchayat whereas
rest of the societies where of Tehsil level
who participated in the first round of
bidding. He further submits that since
minimum three applications should have
been there and only two societies were
applicants, the Auction Committee was
left with no other option but to proceed to
consider all the tender applications that
would have been ordinarily submitted in
the 2nd round and onwards. So, according
to him there was no error much less a
substantial one to hold the allotment and
selection of the respondent no. 5 being
highest bidder, to be bad. This, argument
advanced by learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel does not impress us
either. If there were only two cooperative
societies in the very first round, there was
all the more reason to hold 2nd round of
tender process afresh as contemplated both
in the advertisement as well as fisheries
rights allotment manual.

20. Since, we have already held that
there was no order in writing of the
Chairman of the Auction Committee to
invite applications at the same time,
considerations of applications of various
societies from serial no. 2 to 6 could not
have been done in the first round held on
11th July, 2019. We are not considering
the case of item no. 8 in annexure 6 to the
counter affidavit of respondent no. 5
because that society did not participate and
absented. However, its absence could have
been caused only because there was
further procedure prescribed for 2nd, 3rd
2 All. Sururul Hasan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
and 4th round of bidding process and it
could have been under the impression that
2nd round would be held. We may not
justify the action and procedure followed
by
respondent
on
the
ground
that
Chairman did not pass the order for the
exercise that was undertaken at the very
first round, but we may also observe that
the other fisheries cooperative societies
could not have requisite knowledge of
such procedure being followed and,
therefore, even others might have been
denied the chance. This procedural flaw
therefore, goes to the root of the matter
and we are constrained to hold that there
was no such transparency as is expected
from the government functionaries, at least
in the procedure to be adopted in a public
tender process. Thus, so far as 1st and 2nd
arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner are concerned, they hold
merit.

21. Coming to the 3rd argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent no. 5 did not
have requisite fund in its account to match
at-least minimum reserved price in the
auction of the fisheries rights in respect of
the reservoir in question. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has drawn our attention
to Clause 28 of the manual. Clause 28 of
the manual runs as under:

" eRL; thoh lgdkjh lfefr;ksa dks
fufonk izLrqr djus gsrq izca/k lfefr ls ikfjr izLrko
,oa cSad ikl cqd esa izFke o"kZ ds fufonk ewY; ds
lkis{k /kujkf'k tek dh iqf"V ds fy;s QksVks dkih Hkh
izLrqr djuh gksxh A fufonk izLrqr djus gsrq lfefr
ds lfpo gh vf/kd`r gS vU; ds }kjk izLrqr fufonk
fujLr dj nh tk;sxh A "

English Translation:

For the purpose of submitting
tender application, it is necessary for the
fisheries cooperative societies to have
resolution passed from its committee of
management for the said purpose and the
bank photocopy of the passbook of the
order of the tender must show balance
amount matching reserved price. For the
purpose of filing tender application,
Secretaries are also authorized any other
tender application by any other persons
was rejected.

22. Thus, it is condition precedent in
a sense that a pre-requisite for tender
application is that it should be submitted
alongwith photocopy of the passbook
which should show balance amount at par
with reserved price fixed in the notice
inviting tender. It means that it included
balance amount should be there on the
date of submission of tender application.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn our attention to the statement of
the bank account of respondent no. 5
which
has
been
annexed
alongwith
rejoinder affidavit and which shows that
till 11th July, 2019, respondent no. 5 had
only Rs. 5,870/- in its account. Rs. 4,
40,000/- were deposited only on 12th July,
2019 which is admittedly, a date after
acceptance
of
tender
application
of
respondent
no. 5
and
consequential
allotment of fisheries rights that took place
on 11th July, 2019 itself.

24.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent does not dispute this fact but
only reiterate that requisite money got
deposited well in time before agreement
entered with fisheries department on 08th
August, 2019. The legal position is
absolutely clear. Every tender has to be in
incomplete
form
with
all
requisites
documents on the date of application of
tender, no amendment or supplementary to
correct
the
tender
application
is
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permissible unless the rule of procedure or
advertisement provided for that and this is
not a case where any such amendment in
the tender application was permissible.
However, condition is that there should be
cooperative societies and the cooperative
societies should have resolution passed in
its favour for the purpose of applying for
tender, by its Committee of Management
and that tender application is accompanied
by the photocopy of the passbook showing
minimum balance at par with minimum
reserved price under the advertisement.
These conditions in our view are quite
mandatory
in
nature
and
if
these
documents are not filed in support of the
tender
application,
tender
application
would be liable to be rejected. So on this
count also, the tender application of the
respondent no. 5 could not have been
entertain and so allotment order dated 11th
July, 2019 cannot be sustained in law.

25. The law is well settled that when
a thing is required to be done in a
particular manner under the Rules should
be done in that very manner in case of
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 11 (1), Bangalore v. M/s Ace
Multi Axes Systems Ltd, in Civil Appeal
No. 20854 of 2017 decided on 5th
December, 2017. Vide paragraph 21, the
Apex Court has held thus:

"26.
Whenever
the
statute
prescribes that a particular act is to be
done in a particular manner and also lays
down that failure to comply with the said
requirement leads to severe consequences,
such requirement would be mandatory. It
is the cardinal rule of interpretation that
where a statute provides that a particular
thing should be done, it should be done in
the manner prescribed and not in any
other way. It is also settled rule of
interpretation that where a statute is penal
in character, it must be strictly construed
and followed. Since the requirement, in the
instant case, of obtaining prior permission
is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance
with the same must result in cancelling the
concession made in favour of the grantee,
the respondent herein."

26. Although, the Apex Court has
been dealing with statutory rules in the
said case but even in matters where no
statutory rules have been framed the
Government Orders, manual containing
rules, circulars, directives or guidelines if
framed for the said purpose, in our opinion
are equally binding and the authorities
dealing with matters should abide by the
procedure prescribed for under such
manual, government Orders or directives
or circulars.

27. In this case a specific provision
as contained in the fisheries manual
framed for the purpose of carrying out
auction proceedings for fisheries rights,
provided detail procedure , it was not open
for the Auction Committee to have
bypassed the same or mould the same to
suit its convenience. An authority that
enjoys power or has source of power from
such rules, does not enjoy the authority to
change rules or mould the rules according
to its convenience. Thus, in our opinion in
the present case tender proceedings in
question have been conducted and the
bidding process has been held quite
contrary to the procedure prescribed for
under the manual providing procedure for
auction proceedings qua fisheries rights.

28. In view of above, the entire
tender
proceedings
conducted
by
respondent pursuant to the advertisement
dated 25th July, 2019 in respect of
2 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
Manikpur category 4 reservoir, district
Chitrakoot and the consequential allotment
order date 11.07.2019 in favour of
respondent no. 5 brought on record vide
annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 are hereby
quashed.

29. Respondents are directed to
initiate proceedings to float tender afresh
for the purpose of allotment of fisheries
rights in respect of reservoir in question
within four weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this time the
procedure will be strictly followed as per
the manual and the relevant Government
Order
and
all
the
eligible
persons
including petitioner and respondent no. 5
shall be entitled to participate in the tender
process as per their own rights of
preference.

30. Writ petition thus stands allowed
with above observations and directions.
----------
(2020)02ILR A313

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 29087 of 2019

Anil Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Prakhar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri Mayank
Srivastava

A. Civil Law-UP Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - Section 15(2)
and 15(3) - Notice of no confidence -
Limitation - Intention to make motion - There
is a clear mandate by the legislature that no
meeting can be convened for discussing a no
confidence motion beyond a period of 30 days
- The explanation that has been appended to
the relevant provision only saves a situation
where a notice of confidence motion has been
put to challenge and there is some stay order
operating in that respect -Once a notice is
given convening a meeting, the meeting is a
must on the scheduled date. (Para 12)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Suspension of Notice - Effect of Vacation of
Stay Order - If Court finds notice to be legal
and dismisses the writ petition vacating the
stay order, the suspended animation gets over
and natural legal effect would
be the
rescheduling of the meeting as if notice was
already there - Court's order suspending any
notice, otherwise legal, is like an eclipse that
overshadows the time schedule provided under
the Act, for a while and then goes away. (Para
13)
C. Interpretation of Statute - Golden rule
of interpretation - Literal interpretation - A
limitation if prescribed by legislature, it cannot
be extended - The golden rule of interpretation
is to go by literal interpretation to a provision
of law - The explanation added to the Section
not only shows intendment of the legislature in
saving a particular situation so that by an act of
Court a proceeding otherwise legal, does not
get frustrated, the principle being 'actus curiae
neminem gravabit' which means act of Court
shall prejudice no man. (Para 15)
D. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Scope - Court exercising its power under
Article 226, cannot pass a direction which
would not only carry out a new exception to
the general law but in substance would
amount to an exercise, quite legislative in
nature, which is clearly not permissible.
(Para 16)