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


Nishad Kalyan Matshajivi Sahkari Sammitti Ltd. & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 72509 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7005 (6 December 2005)


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. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed by Nishad Kalyan Matashajivi Sahkari Samitti Limited, Chak Kata, District Chanduali claiming to have an agreement for fishery rights for a period of ten years with the State for quashing the notice dated 8.11.2005.

A bare perusal of the said agreement which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition indicates that it has not been executed between the Society (the present petitioner) and the State but the agreement has been executed in favour of a private person Sri Shiv Pujan Nishad Son of Parshuram. It has not been stated anywhere in the agreement that it has been executed by Sri Shiv Pujan Nishad on behalf of the Society and nor any explanation has been given in the petition for the same. Clause 4 thereof provides that the licensee shall be entitled to have a fishery rights for a period of ten years but after a period of five years the term will be extended only if his work is found to be satisfactory. The agreement executed on 11th February, 2000 came to an end on 10th February, 2005. The petitioner has not brought on record any order to show that extension was ever granted for a further period of five years. We find no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioner had deposited the amount it shall be deemed to have been extended. The period cannot automatically be extended particularly when the condition is absolutely clear that it will be extended only if the work and conduct is found to be satisfactory. A positive order is, therefore, required to be passed. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner.

We also do not find any fault in the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the respondents (Annexure-9 to the petition) by which the present contract was cancelled and fresh auction was ordered. It is not a fit case where the discretionary relief should be granted to the petitioner.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed.    

Date: 6.12.2005



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.