Abdul Gaffar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Abdul Gaffar vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 15, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/461797

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/461797
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.R.K. Trivedi and; M. Katju, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 15, 1997
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 29965 of 1997
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial - fishery right in public pond - Article 14 of Constitution of India - lease of fishery right in public pond to be granted by public auction or public tender after publication in newspaper - non compliance - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - term of fishery lease expired - held, canno...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Gaffar

Advocate P.N. Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 14
Reported In: 1998(1)AWC706b

Excerpt

commercial - fishery right in public pond - article 14 of constitution of india - lease of fishery right in public pond to be granted by public auction or public tender after publication in newspaper - non compliance - violation of article 14 of the constitution of india - term of fishery lease expired - held, cannot be renewed. - r.r.k. trivedi and m. katju, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. both the learned counsel have agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.3. it appears that with regard to pond no. 83 (old) and 394 (new), lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in the 1983 for ten years which has expired. thereafter further extension was granted to the petitioner upto january, 1998. the petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to renew the fishery lease of the petitioner relating to the aforesaid pond which is going to expire in january. 1998 for another five years. it has also been prayed that for this purpose, an application has been filed by him on various dates which may be directed to be decided. the application has also been filed for claim of renewal of the lease.4. in our opinion, the settlement of ponds to exercise the right of fishery cannot be done by renewal or private negotiation. this court has already held in ashok kumar v. state of u. p., 1995 acj 1066, that such public property can only be leased out on the basis of public auction or tender after adequate publicity. in our opinion, once the term of the fishery lease has expired, there is no question of renewal, as that would amount to creating a monopoly in favour of one person. we hold that whenever a fishery lease expires, it can only be let out thereafter by a public auction or public tender after publicity in a newspaper having wide circulation in the area, otherwise there will be violation of article 14 of the constitution as held by the supreme court in raimanna shetty v. international airport authority. air 1979 sc 1628.5. in the circumstances, the relief claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner. however, the respondents are directed to take steps to auction the ponds in accordance with law. thus, the writ petition is rejected.

Full Judgment

R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

2. Both the learned counsel have agreed that this petition be decided finally at this stage.

3. It appears that with regard to pond No. 83 (old) and 394 (new), lease was granted In favour of the petitioner in the 1983 for ten years which has expired. Thereafter further extension was granted to the petitioner upto January, 1998. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to renew the fishery lease of the petitioner relating to the aforesaid pond which is going to expire in January. 1998 for another five years. It has also been prayed that for this purpose, an application has been filed by him on various dates which may be directed to be decided. The application has also been filed for claim of renewal of the lease.

4. In our opinion, the settlement of ponds to exercise the right of fishery cannot be done by renewal or private negotiation. This Court has already held in Ashok Kumar v. State of U. P., 1995 ACJ 1066, that such public property can only be leased out on the basis of public auction or tender after adequate publicity. In our opinion, once the term of the fishery lease has expired, there is no question of renewal, as that would amount to creating a monopoly in favour of one person. We hold that whenever a fishery lease expires, it can only be let out thereafter by a public auction or public tender after publicity in a newspaper having wide circulation in the area, otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in Raimanna Shetty v. International Airport Authority. AIR 1979 SC 1628.

5. In the circumstances, the relief claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, the respondents are directed to take steps to auction the ponds in accordance with law. Thus, the writ petition is rejected.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1997 Same Parties Abdul Gaffar vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Constitution Same Judge R.R.K. Trivedi and; M. Katju, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 14

Constitution