THOKCHOM KULABIDHU SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this Writ Petition are as follows. Government fishery, namely Fishery No. 160 Ikop with No. 161 Laidagon, was advertised for sale by issuing a notice dated 13 -1 -1972, which was published in the Manipur Gazette dated January 19, 1972. In the said notice the date for auction of the fishery in question was fixed on 19 -2 -1972. Auction was held by A. Ibohal Singh, Incharge Chief Fishery Officer. The petitioner Thokchom Kulabidhu Singh offered a bid of Rs. 45,150/ - per year, which is found to be the highest bid offered on the date of sale. The Respondent No. 4, Ikop -Laidagon Fishing Co -operative Society Ltd. represented by its Secretary Abdul Latif, offered a bid of Rs. 40,635/ - and the fishery was settled with the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Co -operative Society, at Rs. 45,150/ - per year for the period from 1 -4 -1972 to 31 -3 -1975. In the order of settlement dated 19 -2 -1972 it is stated that the fishery in question has been settled with the Co -operative Society with normal preference admissible under the Rules.

(2.) AT this stage the relevant Rules may be quoted. The Manipur Fishery Rules 1971, which came into effect from 11 -2 -1972, have been framed by the Administrator in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 155 and 156 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 (1 of 1886), as extended to Manipur, and Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 (4 of 1897) read with Government of India, Ministry of States Notification No. 104 -J dated 24 -8 -1950. The rules for auction sale of fishery lease and collection of fishery revenue are to be found in Part III of the Manipur Fishery Rules. 1971, hereinafter called the Rules. The relevant rules are quoted below:

(3.) MR . Nilamoni Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the settlement made in favour of Respondent No. 4 and confirmed by the State Government being in violation of the Rules, the settlement must be deemed to be made without jurisdiction and as such, is liable to be set aside. The precise submission of the learned Counsel is that the sale was knocked down on the highest bid of the petitioner at Rs. 45,150/ - and after the knocking down of the sale at the highest bid of the petitioner, the auctioning officer allowed the Respondent No. 4 to raise the bid to 90 per cent, of the highest bid and then made the settlement with the Respondent No. 4 at the highest bid of the petitioner, that is at Rs. 45,150/ - which is clearly against Rule 31 of the Rules.