Telangana High Court
D.Srinivasu Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 23 February, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.7873 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
"To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the respondent authorities with regard to non extension of
lease period as per statutory rules issued in G O Ms 343
dated 10.04.1978 and as per Act of God enunciated in
Section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 by further declaring that
the impugned action, as being illegal arbitrary and grossly
violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India."
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri G. Narendar
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 6th
respondent and with the consent of Counsel appearing for the
parties, the Writ Petition is taken for hearing and disposal at
admission stage.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, he has been
declared as the highest bidder in the public auction held on
18.10.2019 for grant of fishing rights into minor irrigation tanks
viz., Chintala Cheruvu and Patha Cheruvu of Choppakatlapalem
village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District; that the lease deed
was executed by the concerned Panchayat Secretary
representing the Gram Panchayat; that the lease was up to
30.05.2020 as per condition No.6; and that he has paid the
necessary lease amount of Rs.58,000 in 2 trenches, vide receipt
dated 20.10.2019 and 09.05.2020.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of
Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown imposed by the
Government of India and the State Government with effect from
22.03.2020, all the human activity had come to a grinding halt
including that of the petitioner and as a result the petitioner
could not reap the benefit of his lease rights of extracting fish
from the 2 tanks in respect of which he was declared as
successful bidder, despite huge investment made for purchasing
the fish seed and the equipment needed.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 6th
respondent being fully aware of the situation prevailing did not
address the concern of the petitioner by granting extension of
the lease period of the fishing rights in respect of the above
mentioned 2 tanks, compelling the petitioner to approach the
5th respondent and submitting representations dated
15.05.2020. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had also
approached the 3rd respondent authority who is the head of the
District and submitted representations dated 26.05.2020.
6. Petitioner further contended that as per Section 56 (d) of
the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the fishing rights in minor
irrigation tanks vested in the Gram Panchayat and the lease
rules stipulated in G.O.Ms. No.343 dated 10.04.1978, which are
the statutory rules governing the subject stipulates that fishing
rights shall be leased out annually in open auction for a period
not exceeding 3 years at a time which are clearly suggests that
lease can be atleast for a period of one year and, as such, the
condition No.6 of lease deed dated 18.10.2019 is contrary to the
stipulation in the G.O.Ms. No.343 of annual lease.
7. It is also the further case of the petitioner that though by
the representations submitted to the 5th and 3rd respondent, he
had sought for extension of one month of his lease rights, the
rights conferred on him under statutory rules cannot be taken
away or waived and as such the lease rights have to be
construed for a period of one year atleast from the month in
which he was declared as successful bidder.
8. The further case of the petitioner is that though the term
of lease granted in his favour is up to 30.05.2020, however on
account of happening of uncertain event of occurrence of Covid-
19 pandemic, the same having made agreement an impossible
act and being force majeure is governed by Section 56 of the
Contract Act, 1872.
9. By placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court
in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1 and
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of
India v. Alimenta S.A. 2, the petitioner contends that not
granting extension of lease period of fishing rights by the
respondents is highly arbitrary and illegal.
10. Counter affidavit on behalf of 6th respondent is filed.
11. By the counter affidavit filed, it is contended that the
petitioner was declared as the highest bidder in the open
auction conducted on 18.10.2019 by the 6th respondent for
transferring fishing rights of Chintala Cheruvu and patha
Cheruvu.
12. It is also contended that the 6th respondent even before
conducting public auction had mentioned that the successful
bidder would have to reap out the fish from the above
1 (1985) 3 SCC 545
2 (2020) 19 SCC 260
mentioned two tanks by 30.05.2020; and that the petitioner
knowing fully well of his entitlement had taken part and was
declared as highest bidder for the year 2019-2020 which ends
by the month of May.
13. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the
petitioner had approached the 5th respondent and submitted a
representation on 15.05.2020 and another representation on
19.05.2020 to the respondent stating that the petitioner did not
reap out the fish in the said tanks due to lockdown imposed on
account of Covid-19 and requested to grant extension of time by
one month up to 30.06.2020.
14. It is also contended that by considering the representation
made by the petitioner the 4th respondent by his proceedings
dated 23.05.2020 directed the 6th respondent to take necessary
steps for extending the lease period for a period of one month
i.e., up to 30.06.2020 as requested by the petitioner to enable
him to harvest the fish in the subject tanks.
15. It is also contended that on account of the direction of the
4th respondent, the 6th respondent at its meeting held on
27.05.2020 passed a resolution extending the lease period up to
30.06.2020.
16. It is further contended that though the 6th respondent
tried to inform the petitioner of the decision taken extending the
term up to 30.06.2020 by a period of one month, as the
petitioner refused to receive a copy of the resolution passed by
the 6th respondent, the same was reported to the concerned
Mandal Panchayat Officer vide letter dated 01.06.2020. It is also
contended that even though the petitioner refused to receive the
letter extending the lease term by a period of one month, the
petitioner was allowed to reap out the fish during the month of
June also without any objection being raised by the 6th
respondent.
17. By the counter affidavit, it is contended by the 6th
respondent that though the petitioner submitted a request to
extend the lease period by a month and learning of the same
being considered favourably, the petitioner changed his mind
and filed the present Writ Petition claiming that the lease period
should be for a period of minimum one year and a maximum of
three years as per GO.Ms No. 343 dated 10.04.1978. It is
however contended that the petitioner cannot claim such benefit
as it was made clear even before conducting public auction that
the term of the lease would be only up to 30.05.2020. However,
on account of Covid-19 pandemic and considering the request
made by the petitioner the lease term was extended by a period
of one month and the petitioner cannot claim that the period of
one year has to be reckoned from the date when he was
declared as successful as the petitioner was fully aware of the
end of the term of the lease by 30.05.2020.
18. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
19. At the outset it is to be noted that auction for grant of
fishing rights is given for a period of one year and the season
would commence from the month of July and would end by the
month of June of the following year.
20. In the facts of the present case though the auction for
grant of fishing rights was conducted by the 6th respondent in
the month of October 2019, whereat the petitioner took part and
was declared successful bidder, it was made clear that the lease
rights would be only for the fishing year 2019 - 20. This would
be evident from the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent
vide his proceedings in Rc.No. P3/2371/2019 dated 14 October
2019 while fixing the upset price.
21. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid communication issued
by the 4th respondent, the 6th respondent had conducted public
auction on 18.10.2019 whereat the petitioner had offered higher
amount by Rs.16,000/- than the upset price and was declared
successful bidder. Further it is also to be noted that after being
declared as successful bidder the petitioner was required to
accept the bid by signing the register maintained by the 6th
respondent which would also show that the petitioner was fully
aware and agreed that the lease term would be up to the end of
the month of May, 2020.
22. The petitioner having taken part in the public auction on
his own volition, knowing fully well the terms and conditions
cannot now turn around to claim that the term of the lease
should be for a minimum period of one year from the date of
auction or maximum of 3 years as per G.O.Ms. No. 343 dated
10.04.1978.
23. It is trite law that a party entering into contact with eyes
wide open cannot thereafter turn around to claim that he had
assumed that the term to be otherwise. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Har Shankar and Ors. v. Dy. Excise and Taxation
Commissioner and Ors 3, while enunciating the above
principle has held as under:
(1975) 1 SCC 737
"16. Those interested in running the country liquor vends offered their
bids voluntarily in the auctions held for granting licences for the sale of
country liquor. The terms and conditions of auctions were announced
before the auctions were held and the bidders participated in the
auctions without a demur and with full knowledge of the commitments
which the bids involved. The announcement of conditions governing the
auctions were in the nature of an invitation to an offer to those who were
interested in the sale of country liquor. The bids given in the auctions
were offers made by prospective vendors to the Government. The
Government's acceptance of those bids was the acceptance of willing
offers made to it. On such acceptance, the contract between the bidders
and the Government became concluded and a binding agreement came
into existence between them. The successful bidders were then granted
licences evidencing the terms of contract between them and the
Government, under which they became entitled to sell liquor. The
licensees exploited the respective licences for a portion of the period of
their currency, presumably in expectation of a profit. Commercial
considerations may have revealed an error of judgment in the
initial assessment of profitability of the adventure but that is a
normal incident of all trading transactions. Those who contract
with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with
its benefits. The powers of the Financial Commissioner to grant
liquor licences by auction and to collect licence fees through the
medium of auctions cannot by writ petitions be questioned by
those who, had their venture succeeded, would have relied upon
those very powers to found a legal claim. Reciprocal rights and
obligations arising out of contract do not depend for their
enforceability upon whether a contracting party finds it prudent
to abide by the terms of the contract. By such a test no contract
could ever have a binding force."
24. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Apex Court
in Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India
(UOI) and Ors 4.
25. Further as is evident from the record the petitioner did
not raise any objection with regard to the term of the lease being
(2015) 7 SCC 728
only up to the month of May 2020 from October 2019 i.e., when
he was declared successful bidder and had made the part
payment of the bid amount or at any time immediately
thereafter. On the other hand, without any demur had
conducted its activity of sowing the fish seed and it is only in
the month of May 2020 the petitioner had for the 1st time by
approaching the respondent submitted a representation had
sought extension of lease term by a period of one month viz.,
up to June, 2020 on account of Covid 19 pandemic. Even by the
aforesaid representation submitted, the petitioner did not raise
the plea of his understanding of the lease term to be up to either
September 2020 or for a period of three years from October
2019.
26. Further it is also to be noted that it is only after the 4th
respondent directing the 6th respondent to consider the request
of the petitioner to grant extension of time by a period of one
month as per the representations submitted by the petitioner on
15.05.2020 and the 6th respondent having considered the same
favourably by passing a resolution at the meeting of the 6th
respondent held on 27.05.2020 extending the list of up to
30.06.2020, and allowing the petitioner to harvest the fish, the
petitioner had changed his approach and filed this present writ
petition claiming that the lease period should be atleast for a
period of one year from the date of the conduct of public
auction. This change of mind and approach of the petitioner at
the fag end of the lease term in the considered view of this court
cannot be permitted and on the other hand only goes to show
that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of his own
mistake/ignorance, if it can be called so even assuming that the
petitioner understood the lease term to be otherwise than the
one which is provided in the rules and followed while
conducting public auction. In view of the above, the reliance
placed by the petitioner on the decisions of the Supreme Court
would not advance the case of the petitioner.
27. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner having been permitted to harvest the fish in the two
tanks by extending the lease term for a period of one month up
to 30.06.2020 on due consideration of the representations
submitted on 15.05.2020 and 19.05.2020 is not entitled to seek
extension of the lease to any further period.
28. Thus, this court is of the view that the Writ Petition as
filed is devoid of merit and consequently has to fail.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.
___________________
Date: 23.02.2024 T. VINOD KUMAR, J
MRKR/VSV
