Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4597 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 43 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

This intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge, dated 12.02.2021, passed in Writ C No.26306 of 2020 by which the writ petition of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim with regard to approval of his fisheries lease on the basis of yearly rent has been dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners had bid for award of fisheries lease. The bid amount of Rs.13,73,000/- was accepted and as per the terms of the advertisement as well as the Rules applicable the petitioners were required to deposit 25% of the amount, being Rs.3,43,250/-, forthwith, but the same was deposited with delay on 05.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners failed to deposit the balance amount and, instead, prayed for fresh terms in respect of payment of lease consideration.

The learned Single Judge found that providing such relaxation might be at the discretion of the authority and the petitioner cannot claim it as of right therefore, no such direction as was prayed for could be issued.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if the authorities could give similar benefit to one then for such similar benefit the petitioner has a right.

We do not accept the above submission because Rule 57(8) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that for settlement of fisheries lease by auction, the provisions of Sections 189 and 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall apply.

Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that the person declared to be purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately 25 % of the amount of his bid, and in default of such deposit the property shall be resold and any deficiency in price occurring on the same can be recovered from him as if it were arrears of land revenue. Section 190 provides that the balance amount of the purchase money is to be paid by the purchaser on or before 15 days from the date of sale and in case of default, the property shall be resold and the deposit made under Section 189 shall be forfeited.

As admittedly the petitioner has failed to deposit the bid amount as per the terms and conditions of the statutory provisions, no relief is to be granted to the petitioners in discretionary writ jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition.

The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.3.2021

Ashok Gupta