JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - What is sought to be challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a group of villagers of different villages situated on the bank of river "Luna", in the shape of a public interest litigation, is the notification (Istahar) issued by the Tahsildar, Puri expressing the intention to lease out water source of Ac. 363.994 decimals as fishery shairat of river "Luna" in the Mouzas extending from village Jamiligoda to village Dethiapada. It is asserted in the writ petition that in the years past, only 14.49 acres of water source of river "Luna" was being leased out as fishery shairat by public auction, but then the persons in whose favour the lease was being settled, used to catch fish in the entire river, thereby polluting the water of the river and causing immense environmental problems. The lessees, in order to attract fish, used to throw dead animals and corpses into the river, thereby polluting the water source and causing health hazards. The lessees also used to put bamboo sticks inside the water at different places causing hindrance to the common populous. Relying upon a circular issued by the Government of Orissa, Revenue and Excise Department, dated 15.7.1998, the petitioners submit that inspite of the decision taken not to lease out/auction/settle drainage channels meant for discharge of flood and saline water into "Chilika" the authorities in fragrant violation of the said circular have decided to lease out 363.994 acres of water source as fishing shairat. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to our notice a circular issued by the Collector, Puri cautioning the Sub-collectors and all the Tahsildars of Puri district not to put to auction or settle in favour of individuals or cooperative societies, any drainage channel for fish farming or prawn culture, thereby obstructing the smooth drainage of flood and saline water and affecting the productivity of the adjoining agricultural lands. The Tahsildars were called upon to furnish categorical certificates to the effect that no drainage channel has been leased out or settled within their jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that though losely called "river Luna", the same is actually a drainage channel and is squarely covered by the circular of the Government referred to above. The Tahsildars were called upon to furnish categorical certificates to the effect that no drainage channel has been leased out or settled within their jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that though losely called "river Luna", the same is actually a drainage channel and is squarely covered by the circular of the Government referred to above. It is further submitted that after coming to know about the notice (Istahar), Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the Collector, Puri, inter alia bringing to his notice the environmental dislocation caused by the lessees who were allowed to fish in Luna drainage and prayed not to grant shairat lease in respect of 363.994 acres of water source. 2. After receiving the Rule issued by this Court, opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 appeared and the Additional Tahsildar, Puri has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the said opposite parties. It is forcefully submitted that in fact river "Luna" is a river and not a drainage channel, as projected by the petitioners. In support of such contention, the opposite parties have referred to a clarification report of the Executive Engineer, Puri Irrigation Division, vide Annexure-A/1 to the counter-affidavit, in which it is clearly stated that "Luna" is not a drain, but a river which starts from Delang and ends at Chilika lake. The length of this river is about thirty four kilometres. The said report is also fortified by the jurisdiction map of Puri Irrigation Division. It is also contended in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have submitted an objection pursuant to issue of the notification Annexure-2, which is pending enquiry before the Collector and notices have been issued to all who may be affected to take part in the enquiry and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. 3. The allegation regarding pollution of water source of river Luna due to fishing activity is strongly repudiated by the State. It is submitted that though 14.49 acres of water source was being leased out to different traditional fishermen, after obtaining the lease, the said fishermen as well as others tried to fish from the entire water source of the river measuring 363.994 acres, thereby causing loss of revenue to the State. It is submitted that though 14.49 acres of water source was being leased out to different traditional fishermen, after obtaining the lease, the said fishermen as well as others tried to fish from the entire water source of the river measuring 363.994 acres, thereby causing loss of revenue to the State. In order to avoid such pilferage, decision was taken to lease out the entire water source starting from Mouza Jamiligoda to Mouza Dethiapada by public auction to prevent clandestine activity. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed, in the garb of a public interest litigation, and it is a camouflage attempt to prevent settlement of the entire water source of the river Luna by auction. 4. The traditional fishermen, in whose favour fishing right in respect of 14.49 acres of water source was leased out have also entered appearance by filing a petition for intervention. It is submitted that the interveners belong to the villages adjoining the river and they are traditional fishermen. Right from 1962-63 they have been taking fishing lease in respect of 14.49 acres. The allegation that they are throwing dead animals and corpses into the river and obstructing the free flow of water is stoutly denied. It is reiterated that the interveners catch fish only in their traditional manner and catching fish is their only livelihood. In support of their claim they have filed xerox copies of different orders passed in Shairat Lease Cases which clearly reveal that 14.49 acres of water source was being leased out in their favour year after year. 5. We heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the interveners. We also carefully scrutinised the documents, affidavits, etc. filed before us. A perusal of the same clearly reveals that "Luna" is a river and not a drainage channel. It is also clear from different documents and the averments made that 14.49 acres of water source situated in Mouza Jamiligoda was being leased out for fishing purpose in favour of the interveners in the past. It is averred by the interveners that they are traditional fishermen and fishing is their only source of livelihood. 6. It is also clear from different documents and the averments made that 14.49 acres of water source situated in Mouza Jamiligoda was being leased out for fishing purpose in favour of the interveners in the past. It is averred by the interveners that they are traditional fishermen and fishing is their only source of livelihood. 6. The allegation made by the petitioners that in the garb of taking fishing lease in respect of only 14.49 acres the lessees are in fact exploiting the entire 363.994 acres of water source, i.e. the entire river Luna is also the certain extent admitted by the State in the counter-affidavit. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, submitted that during pendency of this case the petition filed by the petitioner-villagers before the Collector has been disposed of. After hearing all the parties, the Collector virtually allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and while setting aside the Notification (Istahar) issued by the Tahsildar, Puri for leasing out 363.994 acres of water source of river Luna as fishing shairat, has confined the lease to only 14.49 acres situated at Jamiligoda, i.e. the area which was being leased out since long to the intervener fishermen. In support of such submission, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also filed a xerox copy of the order of the Collector dated 4.3.2002 which is kept on record. 8. Being confronted with such fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even leasing out 14.49 acres of water source for fishing purpose would cause hindrance and pollute the water of the river and would also cause unsurmountabie health hazards to the villagers residing on the banks of the river. To appreciate such submission, we perused the map, Annexure-1, filed by the petitioners in which the entire topography of river Luna is indicated. The said map clearly reveals that Mouza Jamiligoda is in the extreme down-stream whereas all other villages are situated in the up-stream. Thus, leasing out the said water source, as has been done by the Collector, according to us, would not cause any pollution of water or would affect the petitioners. The said map clearly reveals that Mouza Jamiligoda is in the extreme down-stream whereas all other villages are situated in the up-stream. Thus, leasing out the said water source, as has been done by the Collector, according to us, would not cause any pollution of water or would affect the petitioners. In view of the fact that the Collector has set aside the decision of the Tahsildar to lease 363.994 acres of water source and has confined the lease only to 14.49 acres, coupled with the fact that the said water source "Jamiligoda" is situated in the extreme down-stream of the river, we feel that the grievance of the petitioners is effectually mitigated, and no interference is called for. 9. The interveners in whose favour the lease is being granted for the last many years are traditional fishermen. The question of their livelihood is also to be taken care of. According to us, while deciding environmental disputes arising in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, equal importance to human rights and right to livelihood of people belonging to lower strata, flowing out of Article 21 of the Constitution, has also to be borne in mind. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayadu (Retd.) and Others, that while dealing with aspects concerning "life", "human rights" and "liberty", right to livelihood has also to be kept in mind and it is the duty of the court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. 10. In the touch-stone of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court after analysing the facts, we feel that as the water source is being leased out to traditional fishermen, who depend upon fishing, and in view of the further fact that the Collector has now confined the lease only to an area of 14.49 acres, and the most important aspect being that the said 14.49 acres area is situated in the extreme down-stream, we are satisfied that our interference is not called for and while declining to interfere with the decision of the Collector, Puri we direct the local administration to take appropriate steps to maintain strict vigile to ensure that the lessees confine their activities of catching fish only to the area leased out to them. The authorities are also directed to take stringent action against catching of fish in other portion of river Luna either by the lessees or by others. They shall also take appropriate steps to ensure that the lessees catch fish only in traditional method and do not commit any act which would pollute the water or cause environmental dislocation and/or would obstruct free flow of water in the river. We also observe that the settlement, if any, for the coming year and years to come shall be made strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Tahsil Manual. While holding public auction, the authorities shall bear in mind that though the lease is confined only to 14.49 acres, virtually the entire river Luna is leased out so far as fishing right is concerned. Keeping this fact in mind, the upset price shall be fixed by the authorities. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 12. I agree.