Allahabad High Court
Smt Mansha Devi vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 24 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97622
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12283 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Mansha Devi
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Malik,Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. The case of the writ petitioner is that he belongs to Kumhar/Kahar (OBC) Caste. For the purposes of settling a fishery lease, a notice was published with respect to the Arazi No.41, area 0.696 hectare. The writ petitioner claims to have applied on 3.8.2023 and auction is also stated to have been conducted on 4.8.2023 and the writ petitioner in lieu of the annual rent deposited Rs.35,000/- along with the other deposits and made substantial investments.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent no.5, an order is stated to have been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, whereby the auction has been cancelled and it has been observed that the amount deposited by the writ petitioner shall be refunded on the premise that certain religious activities being undergone near the vicinity where the lease is sought to be granted.
3. Questioning the said order the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds raised in cancelling the lease are totally untenable further being foreign to the grounds which can be taken for the cancellation of the lease. He further submits that even no opportunity of hearing was accorded as neither any intimation was given nor any notice was issued.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing for the complainant, on the other hand submits that till date lease has not been executed as it is always open for the authorities to cancel the auction as in the case at hand, the writ petitioner was the sole participant of the auction. He further submits that there are certain valid grounds which were put to service in order to cancel the auction and the writ petitioner has no rights to question the same, particularly, when no concluded contracts stood executed as the lease have not been executed and he seeks to rely upon the judgement in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Mayarathi JT 2023 (3) SC 173.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a coordinate bench of this court passed in the case of Smt. Dhanvata Vs. State of U.P., Writ-C No.42646 of 2023, decided on 8.1.2024.
7. I have heard submissions of rival parties and perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that a fishery lease was sought to be settled by way of auction. The writ petitioner being the sole participant has participated in the said auction, however, before a lease could be executed, the cancellation has been done.
9. In the opinion of the Court, prima facie, no legal rights stands accrued to the writ petitioner, however, at this stage learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he shall prefer an appropriate application before competent authority under the Statute.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record leaving it open to the writ petitioner to raise his grievance before the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
S.A.
