Allowed

Nizamuddin S/O Fez Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CW/3384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed a writ petition seeking to continue fishing license operations. Relying on a coordinate judgment, the court permitted the petitioner to resume activities upon depositing a reduced sum of Rs. 1.5 crore with extended deadlines for future payments, noting the State's inability to find alternative bidders due to pandemic impact.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to resume fishing activities in Jawai Dam up to 31.03.2022, with extended deadlines for 2022-23 fees and an undertaking to renew the license.

Nizamuddin S/O Fez Mohammad Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:13062]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3384/2024

¶4

Nizamuddin S/o Fez Mohammad, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Godam Ki Talai, Ward No-3 Jhalawar District Jhalawar (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry And Fisheries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Department Of Fisheries, Pashudhan Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Joint Director, Department Of Fisheries, Pashudhan Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

Development/ Project Officer Of Fisheries Department, Jhalawar (Rajasthan)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jiteshu Chugh Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam For Respondent(s) : None

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

14/03/2024

¶16

Inspite of service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Balaji Fish Farm Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14463/2021) . Counsel

[2024:RJ-JP:13062]

[CW-3384/2024]

(2 of 5)

submits that instant petition be disposed of in terms of the same order passed in the case of M/s Balajii (Supra).

¶22

The controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Balaji with the following observations and directions:-

¶23

“1. The petitioner firm has been awarded a license for fishing in Jawai Dam pursuant to the NIT dated 12.03.2019.

¶24

As per the terms of the NIT and order of acceptance, the petitioner is required to pay 1/4th of the annual lease amount in advance up to 31st January of each preceding year and remaining 75% amount to be deposited in advance up to 15thMarch of each preceding year.

¶25

The petitioner’s license commenced from 10.04.2019and the same is valid upto 31.03.2024 (for a period of 5 years) with a stipulation that license amount shall be increased by 12% each year.

¶26

The petitioner has deposited the due amount payable (Rs. 3,89,04,249/-) for year 2019-20 and (Rs. 4,08,57,509/-) 2020-21 as per the terms of the NIT/license agreement. However, after 01.04.2021, due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the advance license money for year 2021-22 which was required to be deposited on 31.01.2021 and 15.03.2021 respectively, due to which, the respondents have cancelled the petitioner’s license vide order dated 07.06.2021, while also blacklisting it.

[2024:RJ-JP:13062]

[CW-3384/2024]

(3 of 5)

Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that after cancellation of petitioner’s license and consequential debarment, the respondents have issued NIT for awarding fishing license for the area in question on three occasions and on all such occasions, nobody turned up even to submit a bid.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s failure to pay the requisite amount for the year2021-22 was on account of unprecedent situation emanating from spread of Covid-19 due to which, not only the transportation remained hindered, but also the business activities including fishing remained suspended; even consumption of fish decreased during the period of lock down because hotels were not operating and a few weddings were taking place that too with small number of guests.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present fact-situation, when the State has not been able to find a bidder, the petitioner is ready and willing to perform the obligations under the license granted to it for the remaining period as per the same terms and conditions, if appropriate concession/accommodation is provided to the petitioner firm.

¶33

Dr. Sachin Acharya on instructions, submits that petitioner would carry out the activities according to the license agreement not only for the remaining period up to31.03.2022, but also make all endeavours to continue the license for the remaining

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:13062]

[CW-3384/2024]

period upto 31.03.2024, obviously after paying the increased amount of license fee.

¶38

Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to dispute the fact that NITs issued for the license have failed on three occasions. He is also notable to satisfy the Court as to how the state’s interest would be served by complete stoppage of the fishing activities in Jawai Dam, as no licensee has come forward.

¶39

Having regard to the factual scenario as indicated above and situation that arose out of surge of second wave of Covid-19, when not only the business activities and transportation remained at its lowest but also tourism and hotel industry remained practically closed and marriages were celebrated with very less number and the economy was at its lowest, coupled with the fact that state’s efforts to find another licensee have failed, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met and public interest would be served, if the offer made by the petitioner is directed to be accepted.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that in case, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with the respondent-Fishing Department, they shall permit the petitioner to carry on fishing activities in Jawai Dam up to31.03.2022.

¶41

The petitioner will be required to file an undertaking duly signed by one of the partners of the petitioner-firm within fifteen days from today to the effect that the petitioner will get the fishing license renewed for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:13062]

[CW-3384/2024]

in terms of the NIT dated 12.03.2019, with periodic increase in the license fee.

¶46

So far as requisite amount in relation to the next financial year 2022-23 is concerned, which is otherwise required to be paid by 31.01.2022 (1/4th) and 15.03.2022(3/4th), the petitioner shall be permitted to deposit the same by 30.04.2022 and 30.06.2022 respectively.

¶47

On petitioner’s failure to fulfill any of the above-referred commitments, the respondents shall be free to cancel the license awarded to the petitioner, including blacklisting him without any further notice.”

¶48

This Court finds no valid reasons to take a different view.

¶49

In view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the light of the similar direction as issued in the case of M/s Balaji (Supra) .

¶50

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶51

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶52

Ashu/411

Nizamuddin S/O Fez Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamuddin S/O Fez Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Ratna Son of Shri Bal Krishan Chorasiya Vs Municipal Board Chirawa

Sunita Devi W/O Ramnarayan Sain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopal Sain S/O Jagannath Sain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar S/O Shri Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Gabru Banjara S/O Shri Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhakishan Mena S/O Shri Kalyan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan