Allahabad High Court
Virendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 19 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240693-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 690 of 2023
Appellant :- Virendra Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amar Singh Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 691 of 2023
Appellant :- Dharmraj Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Singh Yadav,Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
These two special appeals are directed against the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.14044 of 2021 dated 8.5.2023. A review petition filed thereafter has also been rejected. Both the orders are assailed in the present appeal.
Appellant Virendra Pratap Singh was granted fishery lease for a period of 10 years on 6.9.2018. The lease, however, was cancelled vide order dated 10.12.2020 w.e.f. 15.1.2021 on the ground that petitioner was violating the terms of contract. Certain inquiries apparently were ordered by the authorities on the ground that the appellant was indulging in fight with others and that the villagers were facing difficulties on account of the activities of the appellants. Upon cancellation of fishery lease the authorities proceeded to re-advertise the auction on 19.1.2021 and the auction was also conducted on the same date i.e. 19.1.2021 itself. Such auction was settled in favour of respondent no. 5, namely Sri Dharmraj Singh. The award of contract in favour of Dharmraj Singh was also challenged in the writ petition. An interim protection was also granted to the appellant.
A counter affidavit was filed in which a report dated 28.1.2022 has been relied upon by the State, as per which, there were various anomalies in the award of fishery rights to the appellant. This report has been relied upon by learned Single Judge in order to deny any relief to the appellant. Subsequent award of contract pursuant to Advertisement dated 19.1.2021, however, has been cancelled on the ground that the notice itself was issued on 19.1.2021 and, therefore, without waiting for any reasonable time or without others being made aware of such notice the auction itself could not have been held on the same day i.e. 19.1.2021.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.5.2023, special appeals have been preferred by Virendra Pratap Singh, who was initially granted the fishery lease, as also by Dharmraj Singh, who was awarded such fishery lease pursuant to cancellation of the earlier lease. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of finally at this juncture itself with the consent of the parties.
On behalf of appellant Virendra Pratap Singh, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in denying relief to the appellant on account of inquiry report dated 28.1.2022 which was never made the basis for any cancellation of lease, etc. It is also submitted that this inquiry otherwise was ex-parte and the appellant was never put to any notice in respect of the accusations made therein. It is submitted that the writ petition was directed against the cancellation of lease and the scope of inquiry ought to have been restricted to order under challenge and a subsequent inquiry could not have been relied upon in the matter.
On behalf of other appellant Dharmraj Singh, it is urged that fishery rights were granted and there is no occasion to interfere with such award of contract.
We have heard Sri Nikhil Kumar and Prashant for the appellant Virendra Pratap Singh, Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant Dharmraj Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the materials placed on record.
The order under challenge before the learned Single Judge, dated 10.12.2020, is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition and states that certain complaints have been received against the petitioner about the conditions of allotment having been violated. A recommendation has been made for cancellation of lease. This order, however, is absolutely silent about the actual violation on part of the appellant nor is it specified as to which of the conditions of contract have been violated by the appellant. In the absence of any reasons having been disclosed justifying the cancellation of contract the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 10.12.2020 could not have been sustained. The learned Single Judge moreover could not have relied upon subsequent ex-parte inquiry report when it was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. In the event any illegality was noticed in the award of contract the petitioner could have been put to notice and an appropriate order in that regard could have been passed. We are, therefore, not impressed by the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge to refuse grant of relief to the appellant in the matter.
So far as the claim of other appellant is concerned, it is not disputed that the advertisement for fresh auction was published on 19.1.2021 and on the same day the contract has been settled. This clearly proves that due notice was not given to the applicants and cancellation of such contract by the learned Single Judge, therefore, merits no interference.
The special appeal filed by appellant Dharmraj Singh, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
The special appeal filed by appellant Virendra Pratap Singh succeeds for the reasons narrated above. The order of cancellation of lease, challenged in the writ petition, stands quashed. It shall however be open for the authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law by passing a fresh order. For such purposes, the issues relating to award of contract can also be adverted to after due notice to the appellant. An appropriate decision in that regard would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.
Learned Single Judge has already allowed a month's time to the appellant Dharmraj Singh to remove fishes from the pond, which direction is also sustained. The direction of learned Single Judge for refund of the amount also merits no interference.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Ranjeet Sahu
