Dismissed

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv Vansh Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024WRIC/10551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of a fishing lease to another society. The Court held that the petitioner's claim to preference was invalid as the society did not reside in the specified village based on registration documents, and the petitioner's filing of forged documents disentitled them to relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82920-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10551 of 2024 Petitioner :- Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv Vansh Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Tripathi,Pradeep Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Modan holding brief of Sri S.K.Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Mohan Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha and Sri Surya Prakash Singh the learned counsel for the opposite party no.6.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the grant of fishing lease in favour of the opposite party no.6 alleging that the chairperson of the opposite party no.6 (society) is working as a Cook in mid-day-meal scheme and her husband is in government employment, therefore, the society is not entitled to get fishing lease.

¶8

The second ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no.6 (society) has been registered on 08.11.2024, whereas, the advertisement was issued on 19.10.2024.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner society was registered in the year 1986 and it has long experience of fishing but it has wrongly been denied the right to get fishing lease.

¶10

Opposing the writ petition, learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the auction was held on 25.11.2024, whereas, the opposite party no.6 (society) was registered on 08.11.2024 and, therefore, the opposite party no.6 was a registered society on the date of the consideration.

¶11

6.Rules 57 and 58 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provide that while granting fishing leases, the Land Management Committee shall give preference to co-operative societies of fishermen residing in the concerned village.

¶12

The learned counsel for the opposite parties

¶13

have drawn attention to the certificate of registration of the petitioner's society annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition wherein the name of the petitioner society is mentioned as ' मतसयजजवजसहककरजसमममतललममटटडभददलजबबजबरर बरहटकमकमझकमवककसखमडपपरकबकजकर'. However, in its typed copy, the petitioner society has been described as 'मतसय जजवज सहककरज समममत ललममटटड बरहटक मकमझक मवककस खमड बकजकर'. The words पपरक 'Bhadauli Bujurg', which are not there in the photocopy of the registration deed, have been inserted in the typed copy to wrongly project that the petitioner is entitled to get preference in grant of fishing rights in respect of village Bahadauli Bujurg, whereas the petitioner is not a society of fishermen residing in village Bhadauli Bujurg and, therefore, is not entitled to get preference in the auction proceedings as per Rules 57 and 58 of the U.P.Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have also drawn attention to a certificate annexed as annexure no.5 to the writ petition to contend that the chairperson of opposite party no. 6

¶15

society is working as a Cook in mid-day-meal scheme. The certificate has been issued on 30.11.2024 whereas the writ petition has been filed on 27.11.2024, which prima-facie raises suspicion against the genuineness of the certificate.

¶16

The conduct of the petitioner in filing forged documents before this Court disentitles it from getting any relief from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Further, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.6 is not eligible for grant of fishing lease could not be substantiated. Therefore, we find no merit in the Writ Petition.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 11.12.2024/Shahnaz

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv Vansh Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Its Sachiv Vansh Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Biotech International Ltd. Thr.Its Auth.Representativ Vs State of U.P. Thr.Prin.Secy.Medi.and Health and Family Welf.andORS

Madhuri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Babasahab Bhimrao Ambedkar University Thru. Registrar and 2 Others Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Ministry. Education New Delhi and 2 Others

Govind Nath Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Ashutosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health and Family Welfare Lko.

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 8 Others