Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Jeevan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary Of Revenue Govt. Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 11747 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4365 (23 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The petitioner's case appears to be that the Commissioner by order dated 22.2.2005 canceled the fishery right contract. Subsequent to that order, those rights have not been re-auctioned.

The petitioner claims that he has made an application to the respondent no. 2 that the fishery rights be granted to the petitioner.

For this purpose, the petitioner relies upon a Government Order published in the Gadget dated 24.1.2004, particularly Clause (2) thereof. However, interpretation of the said clause (2) is  little different than what is suggested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner's submission, auction is to be held only if the contract cannot be awarded to registered societies or Mallahas. According to our interpretation of the said Clause (2)of the Government Order, priority is to be given to the registered societies or Mallahas, but this priority will given at the time of auction and there should be a public auction in which the societies and malahas as well as other persons should be allowed to bid.

After the bid, the other things including the bid amounts being equal, priority is to be given to the registered societies or mallahs. Any other interpretation would not only cause serious prejudice to the revenue collected by the public exchequer, but may also become capable of clandestine award of contracts.

However, considering the fact that after cancellation of the fishery rights, fresh auction should have taken place. We dispose of this writ petition finally requiring the respondent no. 2 to look into the matter as to why re-auction has not taken place, because failing to re-auction causes loss of revenue to the Government and may result in unauthorised fishing. The respondent no. 2 will examine the matter and submit appropriate report in this regard to the District Magistrate, Harmirpur within a month of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the respondent no. 2.


VKS/ WP11747/06


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.