- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 25. 10. 2004 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Billari, Moradabad, by which the auction of the pond for fisheries was cancelled. THE relief sought is that the respondents be directed to execute the lease in his favour.
(2.) WE have heard Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No, 1 to 3. and Shri Anuj Kumar for respondent No. 5. It appears from the record that pond situate in plot No. 342 area 1. 26 hectares in village Udranpur Chak alias Birampur, tehsil Billari, district Moradabad was proposed to be auctioned for piece culture in the year 2004. The auction proceedings were initiated and several persons had participated in the bid. The peti tioner was the highest bidder, but vide impugned order (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) the bid was cancelled mainly on three grounds namely: (1) There was no wide publication of the notice for auction. (2) The bid amount was low. (3) There was apprehension of breach of peace in the village in letting out the pond for culture for a period of 10 years. By the impugned order, re-auction of the pond was proposed.
(3.) AS regards the wide publication of the notice was concerned that was not done. Annexure-1 is the notice, which was proposed to be published and widely circulated, but the cutting of the newspaper has been annexed, which shows that a news item in any newspaper (not specified) was published regarding the camp to be organised at the each tehsil headquarter for letting out the ponds for fisher ies. This was not the wide circulation of the notice. No. specific notice was pub lished in any newspaper regarding the auction of the pond in question. The learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha has placed the Government Order No. 3736 (1 ) 2i 95-2 dated October 17, 1995 to show that for public auction of the pond for fisher ies, wide circulation of the notice was necessary. He has also cited the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U. P and others, 2005 (99) RD 823, in which this Court has made the following observations regarding the auction of the pond for fisheries: "the Revenue Officers, who are entrusted with duty, shall ensure proper advertisement of the date of settlement so that all persons who are eligible to participate have sufficient notice of the proposed settlement. The Govern ment Order itself contemplate "wide publicity". The Sub-Divisional Officer him self should see that wide publicity is made. Now-a-days newspapers having wide circulation in the area is surest mode to publish a proposed settlement. AS a general rule the Sub Divisional Officer should publish in a newspaper having wide circulation of the settlement of fishing right to enable all con cerned to participate. " As we have discussed above, in the present case before us, no such publicity was made.;