Collector, it would have been possible on the part of the Sub-Collector to keep such application pending and to decide the grievance therein depending on the decision of the Collector involving Annexure-5. However for non-disclosure of such development, it appears, the SubCollector appears to have disposed of the claim of the Petitioner with rejection order with a finding that there is no possibility in accepting the request of the Petitioner without ascertainment of complaint of the Petitioner by the competent authority. Keeping in view the nature of order passed by the Sub-Collector, this Court here observes, the Petitioner’s claim for appropriate relief still hinges on the ultimate decision to be taken by the Collector involving Annexure-5. This Court here takes serious note on the complaint through the writ petition that in spite of repeated direction from the Office of the Hon’ble Governor, the Collector is not deciding the representation and simply sitting over the matter. This Court hopes and expects, upon receipt of a copy of this order, the Collector shall do well in taking up the application of the Petitioner at Annexure-5 and thereby disposing of the same by passing a lawful order thereon after entering into inquiry also involving the Petitioner and the persons in the locality on the issue of poising of the pond, by completing the entire exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order by the Petitioner. Since the SubCollector declined to extend the period of lease in absence of any finding on the complaint of the Petitioner, the Sub-Collector is directed to take a fresh decision on the representation of the Petitioner, but however dependent on the observation of the Collector, also by completing such exercise, if necessary, within a further period of fifteen days after disposal of the issue by the Collector. Further considering that there has been some growth in the fish, this Court directs, the fish available in the disputed
