- (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, District Allahabad, whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate has set aside the auction held in favour of the petitioner with respect to fisheries rights and has directed that the Pond No.856 should be re-advertised and proceedings for granting fisheries lease should be re-done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the said order has been passed on a complaint made whereas the petitioner had participated in the auction held and was the highest bidder and his bid was approved by the Competent Authority on 17.03.2012 and the petitioner has complied with the conditions and the contract has been duly executed between the petitioner and the Respondent No.3 on 14.06.2012. He also submits that once the Respondent No.3 has issued contract in favour of the petitioner he could not pass the impugned order dated 14.08.2012 since no person can be Judge of his own cause.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order granting fisheries rights for a period of 10 years over the pond in question to the petitioner was illegal inasmuch as the advertisement was published on 19.11.2011 and it was settled in favour of the petitioner on 21.11.2011 i.e. within two days of its publication. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the law laid down in earlier writ petitions with respect to the auction and settlement of fisheries rights it has been held that there should be clear seven days between the date of advertisement and the auction of fisheries rights. He states that there would be no purpose for issuing an advertisement for fisheries rights, if it is settled within 48 hours in favour of the person of their own choice and others are deprived. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the advertisement is issued so that maximum number of eligible person can participate in the auction which would generate revenue to the State as also enable the interested eligible persons to participate in the auction. He states that in the present case, auction was done within 48 hours from the advertisement to settle the fisheries rights and therefore the contract if any executed by the Respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner cannot give any right to the petitioner since the auction itself was ab-initio void and, therefore, on the complaint made there against, the Respondent No.3 who is the Competent Authority for approval of the auction has rightly passed the impugned order. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, insofar as the submission that the Respondent No.3 cannot be Judge of his own cause is concerned, it appears from the record of the case that approval granted to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was on the basis of an advertisement made on 19.11.2011 and the auction was settled with the petitioner on 21.11.2011. When the complaint was made the Respondent No.3 found that the same was illegal inasmuch as there was no time given to other eligible persons to participate in the auction and hence he has recalled the earlier order. Since the entire proceedings of the first auction were held illegally and in violation of the law laid down by this Court in several writ petitions that seven days clear should be there between the advertisement and auction, it cannot be held that the Respondent No.3 is Judge of his own cause, more particularly, when under the provision for settlement of auction the Respondent No.3 is the Competent Authority for approval of fisheries rights. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on that score, therefore, cannot be accepted.
(3.) INSOFAR as the merits of the findings recorded in the impugned order are concerned, it is not denied by the petitioner that the advertisement was issued on 19.11.2011 and fisheries rights were settled in his favour for a period of 10 years within 48 hours. Clearly, the said settlement in favour of the petitioner was illegal. It has deprived the other eligible persons to participate in the auction and appears to be a collusion at that stage for the purpose of grant of fisheries rights to the petitioner as such no interference is required in the impugned order where it has been provided that fresh advertisement should be made and auction should be held in accordance with law. Moreover, in case the petitioner has made investment in the pond in question and incurred other expenses his remedy is to claim refund or damages, if any, before the Competent Forum. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.;