Allowed

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018WRIC/36880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CIVIL WRIT PETITION challenging the validity of a fishery lease granted without a competitive auction. The Court held that a public auction with no other bidder is invalid and quasheted the proceedings, directing a fresh auction.

What did the court decide?

The alleged auction of 8.10.2018 and the entire auction proceeding is quashed; authorities are directed to take steps for a fresh auction.

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and Another Vs State… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36880 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court with the prayer to direct the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dhaam Mandal, Banda to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.10.2018 (filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition), further to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to carryout fishery work over Yamuna River running from 26 km. to 35 km. (Bhauli Pump Canal to Banbasi Dera Barua Nala) upto 31st March 2019 and further to restrain respondent no. 7 to do fishery work within the same length as mentioned above.

¶6

It is submitted that an auction notice was published in newspaper as well as pasted in notice board of the Zila Panchayat Office at Hamirpur on 27.9.2018 inviting applications for lease for fishery rights from October 2018 upto 31st March 2019. The applications were to be filed latest by 6.10.2018 upto 5:00 p.m. It is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner filed his application within time and the petitioner was granted the fishery rights and he deposited the entire amount, i.e. Rs. 2,11,000/-, by Cheque No. 099287, but before the petitioner could carry his contract it appears that the lease was given in favour of respondent no. 7. The allegation of the petitioner is that the said lease was given to respondent no. 7 without any application and in violation of the rules.

¶7

Upon query being made as to how many persons participated in the auction it is submitted that it was only the petitioner who appeared and no one else. It is to be noted that public property cannot be given to any individual without public auction and an auction in which no one else appeared cannot be said to be an auction in true sense.

¶8

Respondent no. 7, who is represented by Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, also appears to have been favoured in granting lease without any auction, if at all. So far as respondent no. 7 is concerned, learned counsel is not able to indicate as to whether the lease was granted in his favour pursuant to any fresh auction or not.

¶9

That being the case, the alleged auction held on 8.10.2018 is not a proper auction and as such the entire auction proceeding is hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to proceed to take steps for fresh auction in accordance with law.

¶10

Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 14.11.2018 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶12

(Ajay Bhanot, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vishwanath Associates Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Girja Hari Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager Food Corporation of India and 6 Others

Chhabi Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Dept of Urban Land Ceiling and Others

Bhagwan Das and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Vipul Enterprises Vs Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U P and 3 Others

Deepa Erasmus Vs State of U P and 2 Others