Allowed

Agra Sahkari Fisheries Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2018WRIC/40352/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Citing Smt. Kaushaliya Devi, the court held a 9-day notice for a fishing right auction insufficient. The auction and lease grants to two respondents were quashed for violating fair procedure requiring reasonable notice for eligibility formalities. The State was directed to comply with earlier circular issuance mandates.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the auction proceedings and grant of fishing lease to respondents no.3 and 4. Directed Chief Secretary of U.P. to ensure compliance with the direction to issue a circular.

Agra Sahkari Fisheries Marketing Society… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40352 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Agra Sahkari Fisheries Marketing Society Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivanand Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Shivanand Mishra, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶6

Since there is no dispute in respect of the facts and only question of law arises thus with the consent of parties this writ petition is being finally disposed off, at this stage.

¶7

Facts, in brief, giving rise to the dispute are as under.

¶8

An advertisement dated 14. was issued by the District Magistrate inviting applications for grant of lease of fishing rights through auction over some parts of Yamuna River flowing through district Agra. There were total five applicants including the petitioners. From the records it transpires that except respondents no.3 and 4 the other applicants were not found eligible and were not allowed to participate in the auction. Aggrieved by the grant of fishing lease to respondent no.3 and 4, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the advertisement as well as order of approval of bids in favour of the respondent nos.3 and 4 as well as order permitting respondents no.3 and 4 from exercising fishing rights in half of developed Yamuna River, District Agra.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 8.1.2015 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.39590 of 2014, Smt. Kaushaliya Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein it has been held that reasonable time has to be provided between notice for auction and date of auction. The judgment further goes to uphold that reasonable time in the absence of any provision in the statute and the rules should be taken to be four weeks. The learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Kaushaliya

¶10

Devi (supra) while holding that there should be a reasonable time gap between advertisement and the date of auction has placed reliance upon the full Bench decision in case of Ram Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others 2005(99) RD 823 and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134. Further placing reliance in the case of Poole Vs. Smith's Car Sales (Batham), [1962] 2 All ER 482 (CA). The learned Single Judge has also taken into account that certain formalities are required to be completed for being eligible to participate in the auction such as caste certificate, income certificate, which in fact requires some time since these have to be issued by the concerned authorities. Learned Single Judge has also considered that one of the mode of advertisement is Munadi as contemplated by the Govt. Order dated 17.10.1995. Obviously rationale behind the Munadi is that advertisement made in the news papers may not amount to proper advertisement in as much as many times in the remote backward areas falling in the village the news papers are not available and Munadi is the only mode to inform all the persons, who are eligible to participate and thus there should be sufficient notice of the date of the proposed settlement.

¶11

It is an admitted fact that the advertisement was issued on 14.7.2017 in some news paper and the auction took place on 25.7.2017 i.e. on the 9^th day of the advertisement, which in the light of what has been observed by the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Kaushaliya Devi (supra) cannot be held to be a reasonable time for sufficient notice to the persons, who are eligible to participate.

¶12

We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Kaushaliya Devi (supra) and for what has been discussed above by us and the reasons recorded in the judgement of Smt. Kaushaliya Devi the auction proceedings and the subsequent grant of lease of fishing right in favour of respondents no.3 and 4 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

¶13

The Writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

¶14

The judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the case of Smt.

¶15

Kaushaliya Devi (supra) directed the Principal Secretary/Secretary, (Revenue), Govt. of U.P. to issue a circular. Even though counter affidavit has been filed but there is no even a whisper in the same in respect of compliance of order of this Court. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to point out whether this direction has been complied with or not. In any view we direct the Chief Secretary of State of U.P. to ensure compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and issue circular as per directions of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.39590 of 2014, Smt. Kaushaliya Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶16

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. for necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Pramod

Agra Sahkari Fisheries Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agra Sahkari Fisheries Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Puneeta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Madhuri Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muhammad Mustafa Vs Union of India and 05 Others

Naima Khatoon Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ishahak and 52 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another