Dismissed¶21

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil v. District Magistrate, Distt. Raebareli and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2026WRIC/4514/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fishery rights auction by Nagar Panchayat, Raebareli; ten-year lease 2026-36; Clause 6 of terms and conditions dated 28.03.2026 — first-year lease rent Rs.2 lakhs with 15% annual enhancement; alleged conflict with Government Order dated 15.05.1987 (5% increase on renewal); held provisions distinct, no infirmity; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The condition imposed as per Clause 6 of the order dated 28.03.2026 is clearly not contrary to the Government Order dated 15.05.1987. ¶19

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil vs District Magistrate, Distt. Raebareli and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 6 of the terms and conditions supplied vide order dated 28.03.2026 — lease rent of Rs.2 lakhs for financial year 2026-27 with a 15% annual enhancement over the previous year's lease rent for the ten-year fishery-rights grant (2026-36) — is contrary to the Government Order dated 15.05.1987, which prescribes only a 5% increase at the time of renewal.

¶14

Court's answer

The condition imposed as per Clause 6 of the order dated 28.03.2026 is clearly not contrary to the Government Order dated 15.05.1987.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 15.05.1987 pertains only to renewal of the lease and does not prescribe the lease rent payable for each year; the two provisions are distinct and separate, the Court finds no infirmity in Clause 6 as communicated to the petitioner, and the petitioner could not demonstrate any Government Order contrary to the conditions imposed by the respondents.

¶19

Key takeaways

This Court finds no ground for interference with the impugned terms and conditions imposed upon the petitioner.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.) dismisses a writ petition challenging Clause 6 of the terms and conditions communicated vide order dated 28.03.2026 in respect of fishery rights of Nagar Panchayat, Raebareli granted to the petitioner for 2026-36 following an auction pursuant to notice dated 05.03.2026. Clause 6 required lease rent of Rs.2 lakhs for financial year 2026-27 with a 15% annual enhancement over the previous year's rent. The petitioner contended this conflicted with the Government Order dated 15.05.1987, which provides a 5% increase at the time of renewal. Held: the condition is clearly not contrary to that Government Order; its Clause 2 pertains only to renewal and does not prescribe yearly lease rent; the provisions are distinct and separate; no ground for interference; petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 4514 of 2026

¶3

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

District Magistrate, Distt. Raebareli And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satish Chandra Kashish

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Satish Chandra "Kashish" along with Shri Suyash Gupta, Ms. Yeshi Srivastava and Shri Neelambor Misra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard Shri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent No.1 and Shri Satish Chandra "Kashish" along with Shri Suyash Gupta, Ms. Yeshi Srivastava and Shri Neelambor Misra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶13

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, in pursuance of a notice dated 05.03.2026 issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Raebareli, the petitioner participated in the auction for purchase of fishery rights and, being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said auction. It has been submitted that subsequently, the orders dated 27.03.2026 and 28.03.2026 were issued by the respondents, whereby the terms and conditions of the auction were supplied to the petitioner.

¶14

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per Clause 6 of the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 28.03.2026, it has been stated that for the financial year 2026-27, the petitioner has to deposit lease rent of Rs.2 lakhs, while for the remaining period, he shall have to deposit the amount after enhancing the said amount by 15% every year. It is Clause 6 against which the present writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, as per the Government Order dated 15.05.1987, it has been provided that at the time of renewal, only a 5% increase over the previous lease amount shall be charged. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present condition imposed by the respondents is contrary to the Government Order dated 15.05.1987.

¶15

WRIC No. 4514 of 2026

¶16

¶17

5. Shri S.C. "Kashish", learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nagar Panchayat has informed this Court that previously the bids were granted annually and the conditions stated in the Government Order dated 15.05.1987 pertain to such a period where the lessee was granted lease for the subsequent year by enhancing the lease amount by 5% for renewal. He submits that the policy of the Government has changed and now fishery rights are granted for a period of ten years. In the present case, the rights have been granted to the petitioner for the period 2026-36, and for the first year, the lease amount is Rs.2 lakhs, whereas for every subsequent year, the petitioner shall have to pay a 15% enhanced amount over the previous year's lease rent. Accordingly, he submits that both the provisions are distinct and separate and there is no other government order contrary to the condition imposed upon the petitioner under Clause 6 of the terms and conditions communicated to him by means of order dated 28.03.2026.

¶18

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the only Government Order annexed by him, the benefit whereof is being sought, is dated 15.05.1987 and he has fairly submitted that there is no other government order clarifying the aforesaid position.

¶19

7. After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that condition imposed as per Clause 6 of the order dated 28.03.2026 is clearly not contrary to the Government Order dated 15.05.1987. Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 15.05.1987 pertains only to renewal of the lease and does not prescribe the lease rent payable for each year. Accordingly, both and conditions are distinct and separate, and this Court does not find any infirmity in Clause 6 as communicated to the petitioner, nor could the petitioner demonstrate any Government Order contrary to the conditions imposed by the respondents.

¶20

8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference with the impugned terms and conditions imposed upon the petitioner.

¶21

9. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

¶22

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶23

May 12, 2026 Shubhankar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil v. District Magistrate, Distt. Raebareli and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil v. District Magistrate, Distt. Raebareli and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilpa vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 5 Others

Malakhe vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

K.B. Travels Having Its Business Disst. Lko. Thru. Prop. Kamlesh Bhairwa vs Reserve Bank of India New Delhi Thru. Governer and 2 Others

Samiun Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj and 5 Others

M/S Gayatri Hospitality and Realcon Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Sri Suraj Mishra vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.of Infrastructure and Industrail Development,Lko.and 2 Ors.