M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the fishery lease granted to respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE facts of this case are that there is a pond situate at village Balepar, district sant Kabir Nagar, U. P. The lease of the pond was earlier granted to one Nabi Sarwar and that lease expired on 7-7-1999. Thereafter a lease was to be granted. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the gram Panchayat of the village passed a resolution dated 18-12-1999 to the effect that the lease should be granted in favour of the petitioner society @ Rs. 8,500/- per year for a period of ten years. True copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is Annexure 2 to the petition. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is alleged that in compliance of the above resolution of the Gram Panchayat the petitioner society was given possession of the pond and it deposited Rs. 8,500/- with the Gram Sabha. A true copy of the receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure 3 to the petition. The resolution of the Gram panchayat was sent to the Sub-Divisional officer for approval but the said authority did not pass any order of approval on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that petitioners society was doing the work of fishery in the above pond in pursuance of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and has deposited the rent of the Gram panchayat but on 22-4-2001 when the members of the petitioners society went on the spot to net the fishes then some persons claiming themselves to be the member of the respondent No. 3 society tried to interfere with the fishing on the ground that they had been granted lease of the pond by respondent No. 1. Thereupon the petitioner society approached the Tahsildar to enquire about the matter and moved two applications On 24-4-2001 praying for supply of the copy of the lease granted in favour of the respondent No. 3 and for inspection of the file. Thereupon the petitioner society approached the Tahsildar to enquire about the matter and moved two applications On 24-4-2001 praying for supply of the copy of the lease granted in favour of the respondent No. 3 and for inspection of the file. It is alleged in paragraph 8 that the Tahsildar made an endorsement on the application that respondent No. 1 has granted lease in favour of respondent No. Son 18-11-1999, but no copy of the lease was supplied to the petitioner. True copy of the application dated 24-4-2001 having endorsement of grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 3 and a true copy of the letter dated 24-4-2001 for inspection of the file are annexed as annexures 4 and 5 to the petition. ( 5 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the lease was granted to respondent No. 3 without consulting the Gram panchayat and was illegal. in paragraph 11 it is stated that the society of respondent no. 3 does not belong to the area of village belepar and belongs to a different Tahsil. In paragraph 13 of the petition it is stated that the lease was granted to respondent No, 3 without any advertisement in the newspapers and without any public auction and it was granted by private negotiations, hence it is illegal. In paragraph 15 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner society is in possession of the pond since February, 2000 and is looking after it. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the fishery lease was granted to respondent No. 3 in accordance with law and the Rules. In paragraph 5 it is stated that the grant of lease has been approved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is stated that the possession was given to respondent No. 3 after approval by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 18-11-1999. In paragraph 7 of the same it is stated that the respondent No. 3 is in possession of the pond in question and is doing the work of fishery on the basis of the lease granted and approved by the respondent No. 1. In paragraph 10 it is stated that respondent no. 3 was the only society registered in the block. In paragraph 10 it is stated that respondent no. 3 was the only society registered in the block. In paragraph 12 it is stated that respondent No. 3 is the only society in the block and hence the lease could only be granted in its favour. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the alleged resolution of the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner is forged and fabricated. ( 7 ) IT has been repeatedly held by this court that fishery lease can only be granted after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation in the area and thereafter holding public auction/ public tender. Vide Desh Kumar v. State of u. P. , (1998) 89 Rev Dec 385 : (AIR 1998 SC 225); Abdul Gaffar v. State of U. P. , (1997)88 Rev Dec 656; Ram Bharosey Lal v. State of U. P. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31943 of 2002) decided on 7-8-2000. If it is not granted in accordance with this procedure there will be violation of Article 14 of the constitution, and the public exchequer will also suffer. Since it is not disputed that the fishery lease was granted to respondent No. 3 without advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation and thereafter holding public auction/public tender we are of the opinion that the lease granted to respondent No. 3 was wholly illegal and it is hereby quashed. The lease can now be granted only in accordance with the aforementioned decisions of this Court. Till the lease is granted afresh the respondent No. 1 as an interim measure will look after the fishery pond but he shall hand it over to the person in whose favour the public auction/ public tender is finalised. Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .