- (1.) Respondent No. 6-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 1.12.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54588 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.
(2.) Facts lie in a narrow compass: Fisheries right over pond appertaining to plot No. 332 having an area of 0.739 hectares situate in village Rakksha, Tehsil Shohratgarh in the district of Siddharth nager was granted to respondent No. 6-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') for ten years on payment of Rs. 7,400/- per year. No advertisement preceded the settlement. Writ petitioner-respondent No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 6') challenged the same in the writ application. When the matter was taken up on 23rd of November, 2009, the Court relying on a Full Bench authority of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823 observed that fisheries right had to be granted after due advertisement and further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147, decided to auction the fisheries right in Court on 25.11.2009. The Court further observed that the counsel representing the parties shall seek instructions in this regard. When the matter was taken up. On 25th of November 2009, at the request of the appellant, it was adjourned to 30th of November 2009. On 30th of November 2009, the learned Single Judge passed the following orders: "It is extremely unfortunate that learned counsel for respondent No. 6 on flimsy ground is seeking adjournment again. Accordingly, put up tomorrow. It is made clear that for no reason further adjournment would be granted."
(3.) On 1.12.2009, learned counsel for the appellant was not present. Taking note of the offer of the respondent No. 6, the learned Single Judge cancelled the fisheries right granted to appellant and further directed that fisheries right be given to respondent No. 6 for ten years on payment of Rs. 13,000/- per year.;