FAROOQ HASAN,J. - (1.) THIS first appeal arises out of judgment of the learned trial Court dismising the appellant's suit for Rs. 56,0007 -.
(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a civil suit against the State of Rajasthan, Director of Animal Husbandary, the Deputy Director, Fisheries and also making Rajkumar as Proforma defendant, praying therein for: (i) the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 56000/ -towards loss incurred by him on account of the delay in issuing the licence and resulting in depriving him of fishing during period from 1.10.72 to 28.2 -.73. (ii) alternatively the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 55,5551 - as proportionate amount of the aforesaid period of five months. Factual matrix In an auction of 8th September, 1972 in respect of right of fishing in Silised dam (bundh) district Alwar), the highest bid in a sum of Rs. one lac being of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.4, was accepted by the auction Committee in the presence of the Director, Animal husbandary subject to his confirmation. One fourth amount of the auction bid worth Rs. 25,0007 - was deposited by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the defendant No.2 accepting the plaintiff's highest bid, recommended to the Government for according its administrative sanction wide his fetter dated the 30th September, 1972.
(3.) HOWEVER , without any communication as to the fate of the plaintiffs aforesaid highest bid in the auction of 8th September, 1972. the defendants Government functionaries re - auctioned fishing rights in respect of Silised dam on January 20, 1973. Against such reauction the plaintiff presented S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 95/1973 before this Hon'ble Court at Jodhpur which, after, return to the writ petition by the State Government, culminated in favourable decision to the plaintiff on February 21, 1973 with the following conclusions: The circumstance of the present case are exactly similar. In the present 1992 (2) WLN Ramchandra Shukla v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 581 case, the director had recommended to the Govt. vide his letter dated 30th Sept., 1972 to accord sanction to the highest bid of the petitioner which in the eye of law is nothing but the acceptance of the bid by the Director. Under the Scheme of the Act and the Rules, it is only the Director who is the ultimate authority to accept the bid. The Government does not come at all in the picture, and, therefore, when the Director recommended the case of the petitioner that his highest bid may be confirmed, it would tantamount to the acceptance of the highest bid by the Director. In these circumstances, the petitioner has a right to demand the issuance of a licence for carrying the operation of fishing in Silised Bundh for the period for which the auction had taken place. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 arejiereby directed to issue a licence in favour of the petitioner within a week. The petitioner shall get his costs from respondents No. 1 and 2. After the decision of this Court, admittedly, the plaintiff deposited balance bid money worth Rs. 75,000/ - alongwith security deposit of Rs. 5,000/ - and thereupon the plaintiff was accorded license No. 692 on March 1,1973 permitting him to fish in the water of Silised dam upto June 30,1973. ;