Rules of 1958, the court extended indulgence and gave the firm a breathing space to deposit the lease money by order dated 04.02.2021. The said period was further extended vide order dated 06.04.2021. However, despite repeated opportunities, the respondent-writ petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 01.09.2021. While passing this order, this Court took note of the order dated 07.06.2021. With this dismissal, the decision of the respondent authorities to cancel fishing lease of the petitioner attained finality. The learned Single Bench, while causing interference in the matter by order dated 13.01.2022, seems to have ignored the material facts and circumstances of the earlier round of litigation referred to supra. It cannot be disputed that the terms and conditions of the fishing lease are governed by Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1958 reproduced supra. As per this rule, the inevitable consequence of non-deposit of lease money is cancellation of the lease, forfeiture of security money and debarring the tenderer/bidder from entering into a fishing contract for a period of two years i.e. blacklisting. The power of relaxation is only available for a limited window of 7 days and 15 days respectively as per the proviso to the said rule. However, it is not in dispute that the respondentwrit petitioner failed to deposit the lease money even in the extended period. There was no pleading in the writ petition that the relief was being sought on account the availability of force majeure clause in the agreement. Otherwise also, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd vs Hyaliram Jagannat [AIR 1968 SC 522] , the
