- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned' order dated 6-3-97 Annexure-9 to the writ petition by which the order extending the petitioner's lease of fishery right on 10-12-96 for another five years has been cancelled. In my opinion, the fishery right is a public property and it is settled law that public property cannot be given to the [vide Kamana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979, SC 1628. Such fishery right or patta of Gram Sabha and public land cannot be given to any one unless there is proper advertise ment and public auction or public tender or the other (sic) other such procedure which in accordance with Article 140 of the Con stitution. The petitioner claims that his. fishery right was renewed on the basis of some recommendation made by Tehsildar, Amroha dated 5-12-96. In my opinion, this recommendation of the Tehsildar was whol ly unconstitutional being violative of Ar ticle 14 of the Constitution. Hence, while I reject this writ peti tion. I also hold that if the authority con cerned has given fishery right to anybody without proper advertisement and without opportunity to the eligible person to apply for the same, that patta will also be treated as null and void, however, it will be open to the authorities concerned to give the fishery right after advertising the same in well-known newspapers and inviting tenders or holding auction publicly so that every body who are eligible to apply may do so and thus Article 14 of the Constitution may be com plied with. As regards the provisions of the Gaon Samaj Manual they cannot prevail over Article 14 of the Constitution as the Constitution is much higher law than the Gaon Samaj Manual.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order may be given to the petitioner within two days on the pay ment of usual charges. Petition dismissed. .;