JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Rathod for the petitioner and Mr. Kotak, Ld. AGP for the respondent. Rule. Mr. Kotak, Ld. AGP waives the service. ( 3 ) THE present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the notice dtd. 14/12/2000 issued by the Asstt. Director, prohibiting the fishing activity in Mukteshwar Reservoir to the petitioners society and the Notice dtd. 8/01/2000 issued by the Deputy Director for terminating the contract. ( 4 ) MR. Rathod for the petitioner submitted that as per the policy of the Government, contract which has expired on June, 2000, were continued upto June 2001 and the contract was in existence and pending the said contract, the Asstt. Director passed an order on 14th December, 2000, whereby, the society was prohibited from undertaking the fishing activities, which itself shows that, the contract is yet not terminated and therefore, prior thereto, the society cannot be prohibited from continuing with the fishing activities pursuant to the contract. ( 5 ) MR. Rathod further submitted that, even as per the subsequent policy of the Government, the contract which were expired in June 2001, are continued up to June 2002 and therefore, he submitted that since the contract is finally not terminated by the deputy director though in his submission the Commissioner/director of fisheries has jurisdiction to take the decision whether the contract is to be terminated or not. However, he submitted that, so long the contract is not terminated, the petitioner society is entitled to undertake the fishing activities. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the State Government, Mr. Kotak submitted that, the conduct of the Chairman of the petitioner society is such that, he is party to misappropriation of Rs. 11. 25 lacs and in housing scheme given by the director of fisheries to the petitioner society. It was submitted by him that police complaint for misappropriation is filed bearing Crim. Registration No. I/17/2001 dated 14. 2. 2001 by the Asstt. Director of fisheries against the Chairman of the petitioner society. ( 7 ) MR. Kotak submitted that until the misappropriated amount of the government is returned, the petitioner society should not be permitted to undertake the fishing activity and petition be dismissed on bad conduct of chairman of petitioner society. Registration No. I/17/2001 dated 14. 2. 2001 by the Asstt. Director of fisheries against the Chairman of the petitioner society. ( 7 ) MR. Kotak submitted that until the misappropriated amount of the government is returned, the petitioner society should not be permitted to undertake the fishing activity and petition be dismissed on bad conduct of chairman of petitioner society. Mr Kotak further submitted that the inspection was carried out of the fishing activities on 10. 5. 2000 and it transpired that the fishing activities, is being conducted by the petitioner society, through outside fishermen and it was also found that no permission is obtained by the petitioner society for the said purpose. ( 8 ) MR. Kotak submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner society has continued with the fishing activities and pending the same, the amount of Rs. 94,000. 00 for the period commencing from June 2001 to June 2002, was required to be paid by the petitioner society and the same is also not paid. Mr. Kotak also submitted that, the amount of lease of Rs. 94,000. 00 is for the grant of permission to undertake the fishing activities but in addition thereto, the petitioner society is required to pay the amount to the government as per the quantum of fish which are abstracted from the reservoir. Mr. Kotak also submitted that in the matter of contractual agreement, the court should not interfere. ( 9 ) AT this stage, before, on the rival submission of the parties are examined it may be noted that when the question was put to Mr. Rathod, whether the petitioner society is ready to make any payment for the fishing activities undertaken by it under the interim order passed by this Court ? Mr. Rathod has clearly submitted that, the society is prepared to deposit the amount with the Government and therefore, such amount of Rs. 90,000/shall be deposited by the petitioner society within a period of three weeks from today and therefore, the petitioner society is directed to act as per the statement. Further it is directed to submit when the draft of payment is received and the concerned officers of the fisheries shall return the cheques which were given by the petitioner but not encashed due to the pendency of this petition. Further it is directed to submit when the draft of payment is received and the concerned officers of the fisheries shall return the cheques which were given by the petitioner but not encashed due to the pendency of this petition. ( 10 ) AS regards the contentions of the Government, that the Chairman of the petitioner society is party to the alleged misappropriation is concerned, it is true that the Court would not exercise the equitable jurisdiction if the conduct of the party is such that they cannot be entrusted with the writ of this Court. However at the same time, it is required to be considered that whether the conduct of the party is pertaining to the subject matter of this petition or not. If we examine the record of the case, it transpires that the alleged amount of misappropriation is for housing scheme of the Government and it is not connected with the fishing activities for which the contract is given to the petitioner. Therefore, it will be for the concerned authority to take appropriate action against the Chairman of the petitioner society if he is found involved in the misappropriation of the housing scheme. However, so far as the subject matter of this petition is concerned, it cannot be said it is disentitling the petitioner to approach before the High Court for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this Court cannot accept the said contention raised by the respondent. ( 11 ) SO far as the second contention of Mr. Kotak that breaches were found upon the inspection on 10. 5. 2000 as well as on 14. 11. 2000 are concerned, there is considerable force. Mr. Rathod for the petitioner did not submitted that they are exparte and without knowledge of the petitioner but the facts remains that, on 10. 5. 2000 and 14. 11. 2000 it had come on record that, the petitioner society is undertaking the fishing activities through fisherman of the out side States and not through its own members. When the Asstt. Director, upon such record, took decision that by way of temporary measures as per the order dtd. 14. 12. 2000, the petitioner society should be stopped from undertaking the fishing activities, such action cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 12 ) MR. When the Asstt. Director, upon such record, took decision that by way of temporary measures as per the order dtd. 14. 12. 2000, the petitioner society should be stopped from undertaking the fishing activities, such action cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 12 ) MR. Rathod submitted that, officers concerned as demanded the money from the Chairman of the petitioner society and for such purpose, the complaint is also filed and investigation is going on. If that is the ground for prohibiting the petitioner society, from undertaking fishing activities, as per the letter dtd. 14. 12. 2000 then such action cannot be countered. But at the same time, since the Rojkam is also produced and since at two incidences, on 10. 5. 2000 and 14. 11. 2000, it has come on record that the petitioner society was undertaking the fishing activities through the outside fishermen and on such ground, the Asstt. Director has stopped the fishing activities it cannot be said that the same is totally extraneous to the terms and conditions of the contract and therefore, the challenge to the order Dt. . 14. 12. 2000 made by the petitioner is of no substance and relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in this regard. ( 13 ) SO far as the challenge to the notice dtd. 8th January, 2000 is concerned, since it is the contention of petitioner that the Deputy Director of fisheries has no authority and it is only for the Director of fisheries to take the decision. I am of the view that, if the decision is taken by the Director of fisheries in this regard, it would be just and proper. There is additional reason for giving direction to the Director of fisheries to take the decision because the allegations are made against the Asstt. Director of fisheries who has reported to the Deputy Director for taking action, more particularly, of corruption. ( 14 ) IT is a matter of record that up till now the decision is not taken upon the show cause notice, dtd. 8/01/2001 and the petitioner has yet to reply the same and at that stage of the show cause notice the petitioner preferred the petitioner in April 2001. ( 14 ) IT is a matter of record that up till now the decision is not taken upon the show cause notice, dtd. 8/01/2001 and the petitioner has yet to reply the same and at that stage of the show cause notice the petitioner preferred the petitioner in April 2001. Under these circumstances, it will be for the petitioner to submit the reply to the said show cause notice, and such reply may be to the Deputy Director of the fisheries. However, it is observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision will be taken by the Director of the fisheries as contract should be finally terminated or not ? It is needless to observe that once the decision is taken it will be open to the authority to take recourse under the law for recovery of outstanding amount if any for the period during which the petitioner continued the fishing activities. ( 15 ) MR. Rathod for the petitioner submitted that, before such decision is taken, the opportunity of hearing may be given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that, until the decision is finally taken by the Commissioner, the interim relief granted by this Court may be continued. I am afraid such request be accepted. ( 16 ) IN view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order is vacated. .