Allahabad High Court
Matasyajeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 956 of 2021
Petitioner :- Matasyajeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava,Ankur Jee Srivastav,Sumit Daga
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner is a Matsyajeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. i.e. a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 since 2014.
3. A fishery lease was granted in favour of the petitioner on 2.8.2019 for a period of one year. The said period has admittedly expired.
4. This petition has been filed with a grievance that while cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for violation of certain conditions contained in the concerned agreement, by the order impugned dated 2.7.2020, the petitioner was blacklisted. The said order was challenged by means of an amendment application, which was allowed and there is another order impugned in the petition i.e. 5.12.2020, whereby the District Magistrate has declined to correct the previous order dated 2.7.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, challenging the order dated 2.7.2020, the petitioner had filed Writ-C No.12382 of 2020, which was disposed off by this Court by order dated 31.8.2020 permitting the petitioner to file a recall application bringing to the notice of District Magistrate necessary facts regarding service of notice and the subsequent order impugned dated 5.12.2020 has been passed in furtherance of the order dated 31.8.2020 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
6. In sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while, at this stage, the petitioner is not aggrieved by cancellation of his lease as the period has expired, the petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent that he has been blacklisted without issuing any notice to it.
7. He submits that there is no condition in the lease agreement that for want of compliance of the stipulations, the petitioner can be blacklisted. He also submits that, even otherwise, there was no ground to blacklist the petitioner and at the most the order impugned should have confined itself to the cancellation part, and therefore, the order of blacklisting is an over step in the exercise of administrative function.
8. Learned Standing Counsel, however, by referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner committed violation of the terms of the lease, and therefore, the orders impugned have rightly been passed.
9. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed annexing therewith all the notices, which have been referred to in the orders impugned, however, the Court finds that none of the notices is in relation to blacklisting aspect, rather they were regarding certain other allegations not connected with blacklisting, but in relation to irregular/illegal functioning of the petitioner towards fishing.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s ATTS Associates Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023(1) ADJ 288 (DB) Allahabad High Court with special reference to paragraph 18 of the same, submits that blacklisting without issuing a show cause notice and without providing opportunity of hearing is bad and unsustainable.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that insofar as cancellation of lease of the petitioner is concerned, no adjudication of the same is required as, admittedly, the lease was granted in August, 2019 for a period of one year, which period has expired in August, 2020.
12. Insofar as the blacklisting aspect is concerned, I do not find any justification on the part of the District Magistrate to blacklist the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice and, even otherwise, there is no such stipulation in the lease agreement that a registered society can be blacklisted if fishing activities are found irregular.
13. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances, since the petitioner is a registered co-operative society and has a preferential right in the matter of fishery lease, blacklisting would certainly affect its rights to participate in the future auction proceedings.
14. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned orders dated 2.7.2020 and 5.12.2020 to the extent they direct blacklisting the petitioner in relation to the fisheries rights.
15. The petitioner shall be allowed to participate in future proceedings of allotment/grant of fisheries rights as and when the occasion arises.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
Anil K. Sharma
