- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The pond known as Levedtal in village Katariya Babu Post Office Sikta, Block Bhanwapur, Tehsil Dumeriyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar was auctioned on 20-12-1976 and lease was granted in favour of highest bidder. On expiry of the period of lease, the same was renewed on 9-3-1987 for a further period of ten years. Before expiry of period of said lease the respondent No. 3 moved an application on 7-12- 1996 for renewal of lease for further period of ten years and in the said application a report was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer from the Tehsildar. The lease was further renewed for a period of ten years in favour of respondent No. 3 without even knowledge of the petitioner Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee. The petitioner Gaon Sabha filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 5-4-1997 for cancellation of renewal of lease stating relevant materials. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner Basti Division, Basti challenging the aforesaid order dated 4-3-1997 granting renewal of lease in favour of the respondent No. 3. The Additional Commissioner (Administration) by order dated 12-8-1998 stayed the operation of the order challenged in the revision and issued appropriate direction for making interim arrangement of leasing out the said pond on daily rent basis during the pendency of revision. The revision was taken up on 6-10-1998 and ultimately by order dated 13-10-1998 the revision was dismissed as not maintainable and stay order was vacated. Challenging the same, present writ petition was filed.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed counter affidavit and petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit. Heard learned counsel for petitioner who mainly contended that the facts disclosed in the writ petition clearly indicate that by a private arrangement lease has been granted to the respondent No. 3 and for a long time by such lease the pond is controlled by a particular group of persons and impugned order granting lease to operate fishery right in favour of respondent No. 3 is bad in law as neither any public auction was held nor any advertisement was published making the general public to know about t he proposed lease and to contest for the same. In support of such contention, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgments in the case of Abdul Gaffar v. State of U. P. , reported in 1907 (88) R. D. 656; Desh Kumar v. State of U. P. , reported in 1998 (89) R. D. 385 and in the case of Rom Lal v. Sub Divisional Officer in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29941 of 1998, a copy whereof has been annexed at Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner relying on the aforesaid judgments that in the present case there being no proper advertisement in the news paper having wide circulation in the State and there being no public auction held, the impugned arrangement of grant of fishery right to the respondent No. 3isliabletobcquased. Mr. M. D. Mishra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 3 contended that the judgments relied on by the petitioner do not lay down good law and in support of such contention reliance was placed on Rule 115-S of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and stated that no advertisement in news paper has been provided there. Reliance was also placed on Section 126 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for contending that Government orders issued from time to time are having binding force. Reservation in favour of members of a particular community is also permissible under Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AFTER considering the contentions of the respective parties, I find that the said judgments by several Division Benches of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are having binding effect. It has been held in those judgments categorically that without proper advertisement in newspapers and without holding public auction such fishery, lease are not to be granted. In the present case apparently the same has not been complied with. In such circumstances, absence of such provision in the relevant Rules will not help the respondents particularly when the said judgments did not prescribe a procedure contrary to the said Rules. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed and the orders dated-4-3-1997 at Annexure-4 and 13-8-1998 at Annexure-16 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The appropriate authority will he entitled to lake appropriate steps to lease out the pond in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;