Sample Form

In the High Court of Judicature at ……..
In re Art. 226 of the Constitution of India
Name & Address :………………..					Petitioner
……………………………………
versus
(1) State of ………, through Secretary of…………….[Dept.] 					
(2) The Deputy Commissioner of…………				Respondents
(3) Name & Address:……………………..
 The petitioner above-named states as under:
1. The Fishery No. ………, River ……….., is on the register of fisheries maintained by the Revenue Department of the State of ……
2. That it is a first class fishery and since its registration, it was being settled by auction in accordance with the rules which regulate the settlement of fisheries.
3. That respondent No. 2 was the lessee of the said fishery for the years…… and…… He had obtained the settlement by bidding at the auction sales.
4. That in conformity with the rules, respondent No. 1 issued a proclamation to the effect that the fishery in question (No. …..) along with others would be put up for sale on ..…. for a period of …… years commencing from…….. The proclamation was duly published. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No. 1 as an intending bidder for the fishery in question. But the fishery was not put up to sale as advertised. All other fisheries were duly auctioned. No information was given to the bidders why this fishery could not be put up for sale.
5. That meanwhile the State Government modified the old rule regulating the leasing of the fisheries in the State under the ………. Land and Revenue Regulation passed in……. The new rule ……… of ……… corresponds to the old rule…… framed under Section. …..of the said Regulation by operation of Section……… which empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating fishing in the fisheries. The new rule read as :
"No fishery shall be settled otherwise than sale except by the State Government. The order of settlement passed by the State Government shall be final."
6. It appears that acting on the newly modified Rule ……. abovementioned respondent No. 1 leased the said fishery No…….. to respondent No. 2 by order, dated……., at an annual revenue of Rs………… subject to usual terms and conditions of fishery leases with effect from ……… for a term of ……….  years.
7. The settlement made with respondent No. 2 has been made on grossly inadequate rental and has resulted in a substantial loss to the exchequer. The petitioner is prepared to pay at a much higher rate than the one at which the settlement has been made with respondent No. 2.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 1 , dated…… the petitioner approaches the Hon'ble Court for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction setting aside the settlement made with respondent No. 2 and for re-settling the said fishery by sale in open competition on the following, among other
Grounds
(i) Rule ………… of the modified fishery rules quoted above is illegal, bad in law  and in excess of the powers of the State Government.
(ii) Rule ………. aforesaid is unreasonable and arbitrary. It confers on the State Government unrestricted power to make settlements. No method or manner of making settlement is provided when the State Government decides to settle a fishery direct. The State Government in its direct settlement is not bound by any procedure or the rules. It may settle any fishery at any time with any one without notice to persons interested in the settlement of fisheries. It need not settle the fisheries by auction or even by tender system. The rule in question also does not contain anything which may guide or regulate the conduct of the State Government in making a direct settlement. It also makes the order of State Government final. No appeal is provided against it, while all orders of settlement by subordinate authorities are appealable. When the power or the discretion is unlimited and it is not regulated or restricted in any way, it is capable of arbitrary exercise.
(iii) The direction in Rule ……. aforesaid which allows the State Government to settle a fishery otherwise than by sale or makes the order of settlement by the State Government final, is inconsistent with Sec. ……. of the Regulation and as such bad in law  the State Government and therefore invalid and unenforceable. The settlement aforementioned is thus by an authority which had no jurisdiction and is therefore, incompetent and unsustainable.
(iv) The petitioner has locus standi  to file this petition :
(a) A Competent authority under the rules issued a notice inviting bidders to a sale of this fishery which was to be held on……..
(b) Petitioner went there for bidding at the sale.
(c) He was keen on having the settlement of the fishery and was prepared to pay at a rate higher than that at which it has been settled with respondent No.2.
(d) The petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of taking the settlement which the rules provided as the fishery was taken out of the category of other fisheries of the district which were duly put up for sale.
(e) The petitioner is still prepared to have the fishery on a competitive basis. The petitioner is in all respects eligible for a settlement.
(f) The method adopted for settling the fishery has caused an injury to the petitioner inasmuch as by an illegal settlement he is prevented from exercising his right under the rules to have the fishery.
(v) Loss has also been caused to the revenues of the State. Both from a public and a private viewpoint the petitioner has a right to demand a settlement of the fishery under the rules. He has no other way of obtaining redress. He is praying for cancellation of illegal settlement in order that a valid settlement of it may be possible.
9. It is, therefore, prayed that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 2 be set aside. It should cease to have effect and the said fishery be directed to be settled in accordance with rules.
N. B. -  An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.
(Sd.)
Petitioners
Dated ……………     								
(Sd.)
Advocate for the Petitioners.