This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to reconsider fisheries rights. The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation on the matter expeditiously without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and pass an order within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10118 of 2018
Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Rai and Shri A.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 20.09.2017 published by Up-Ziladhikaqri, Kerakat, Jaunpur in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' for fisheries rights and for a direction to second respondent i.e. Up-Ziladhikari, Kerakat, Distt., Jaunpur to permit the petitioner to exercise his fisheries right over the pond, plot no.211 Ka, area 0.336 hect. situated in village Rasoolpur, Aujhenia, Tehsil Kerakat, Jaunpur after accepting the lease rent as due from the petitioner.
The record in question reflects that the petitioner claims to be the highest bidder in the auction over the pond situated at plot no.211 area 0.336 hect. in village Rasoolpur, Aujhenia, Tehsil Kerakat, Jaunpur for fishery rights. The bid of Rs.4650/- per year was accepted on the basis of auction held on 29.10.2004 for ten years. As the petitioner could not deposit the requisite fee on or before the date fixed, he has approached this Court by preferring Writ Petition No.23864 of 2005 (Durga Prasad Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.4.2005 condoning the delay in depositing the aforesaid amount and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.5000/- as cost. It is contended that in response thereof the petitioner had deposited the requisite amount and consequently the lease deed was executed by the competent authority on 21.4.2005, which is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. On the basis of averment contained in the lease deed it is claimed that the aforesaid lease was executed for 20 years and as such the same is still existing and therefore meanwhile the respondents cannot make any advertisement for the pond in question.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel raised an objection that from the order dated 4.4.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.23864 of 2005 it is reflected that the lease was for 10 years. Even from the first page of lease deed in question at page 21 of the papers book this much is reflected that the lease was executed for 10 years i.e. from 6.12.2004 to 5.12.2014 and
as such at no point of time the petitioner has got any right for fishing after expiry of the said period.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that for redressing his grievance he has already moved detailed representation on 26.10.2017 to the second respondent and the same may be directed to be decided within stipulated period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the second respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 2.4.2018 SP/
Durga Prasad Rai
State of U.P.
Up-Ziladhikari, Kerakat
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
