Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A fishery patta of a Gaon Sabha pond was granted in favour of respondent No. 4 Adya Shanker Tiwari in the year 1992 for a period of ten years. After the expiry of the lease the respondent No. 4 applied for renewal and by an order dated 23.4.2003 the U.P. Zila Adhikari, Raniganj, Pratapgarh renewed the fishery lease of the respondent No. 4 for a period of five years. The order was challenged by the petitioner in revision. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 16.12.2003 set aside the order of the U.P. Zila Adhikari, Raniganj, Pratapgarh had directed that the lease be granted after due publicity and by public auction or by public tender. This order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged by the respondent No. 4 in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 22.12.2005 has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the revision against the order of the U.P. Zila Adhikari was not maintainable. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Shamim Uddin Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P,K. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel for the state authorities.
(3.) It was submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that without any publicity and notice the fishery lease could not be settled or renewed in favour of respondents No. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 it is stated that the respondent No. 4 had applied for renewal and on that application an order for renewal was passed. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (99) RD 823, has held that renewal of fishery lease in favour of the original lessee creates a monopoly and deprives other persons who may be intending to take the fease from being considered and is therefore illegal. It has also been held in that case that the order of cancellation of a fishery lease or of refusal to cancel it passed by the Collector is a revisable one. On facts there appears to be no dispute that there has been no auction nor any mode of settlement giving the other eligible persons the right to be considered has been adopted. The view taken by the Board of Revenue that an order of renewal of a fishery lease is a purely administrative order is not relevant in view of what has been laid down by the Full Bench, which has held that paragraph 60 (2) Kha of the Gaon Sabha Manual, which makes renewal of the lease permissible is invalid and therefore no renewal can at all be made. Thus, it is clear that the order renewing the lease of the respondent No. 4 is an illegal order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of renewal dated 23.4.2003 pages by the U.P. Zila Adhikari, Raniganj, Pratapgarh in favour of respondent No. 4 is set aside. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 22.12.2005 is also set aside. The respondents shall now settle the lease in respect of the pond afresh. In accordance with law and as per the directions contained in the various Government orders, which have been taken note of in Ram Kumar's case and in accordance with the principles laid down in that case.;