ORDER 1. Short facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society of Fishermen engaged in cultivation of fishes at Mahagaon water tank, having an area of 140.59 hectares' which falls within the limits of Zila Panchayat, Jabalpur. Said tank has been allotted to respondent No.3 which is a Co-operative Society situated at a distance of more than 8 kms. from subject tank. It is stated in the petition that the tank was allotted on 13.12.2002 for a period of seven years to respondent No.3 in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner. It being in contravention of the procedure prescribed in exercise of powers under section 53 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, is liable to be set aside. Earlier, Writ Petition No.7328/02 was submitted before this Court challenging the allotment. The petition was disposed of on 10.1.2003 with a direction that the representation made by the petitioner may be decided by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, by speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, vide order dated 25.8.2003 contained in Annexure P-8, dismissed the representation which, too, has been challenged in the present writ petition along with as challenge to the allotment itself of water tank to respondent No.3. 2. Respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5 submitted a joint return stating therein that the petitioner had earlier instituted Civil Suit No.349-A/2003 which was withdrawn on 7.1.2004 with liberty to prefer appeal before the Board of Revenue. In this view of the matter, the petition is not maintainable. On merits, it is contended that lease of the subject tank was allotted after due publication in daily newspapers "Desh Bandhu " dated 24.1.2001 and "Nav Bharat" dated 9.8.2000 which was a sufficient compliance of the procedure prescribed for allotment of tank by way of lease. Moreover, petitioner was earlier granted lease of the said tank during the previous years and default in respect of lease rent to the tune of Rs. 99,083/ - was committed by it. Accordingly, petitioner was disqualified and being a defaulter, was ineligible to participate in the process of allotment by way of lease. Thus, petitioner has no right to challenge the allotment of subject tank. Since there was no applicant other than respondent No.3 for grant of lease of subject tank, its application was liable to be considered and was duly allowed. Accordingly, petitioner was disqualified and being a defaulter, was ineligible to participate in the process of allotment by way of lease. Thus, petitioner has no right to challenge the allotment of subject tank. Since there was no applicant other than respondent No.3 for grant of lease of subject tank, its application was liable to be considered and was duly allowed. Thus, the petition is liable to dismissal. 3. Shri Sudhir K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, made their submissions which have been considered in the light of the material on record as well as law governing the situation. 4. As regards objection about the effect of Civil Suit, it may be seen that, admittedly, the petitioner, earlier, instituted Civil Suit No.349-A/2003 in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur, against the respondent No.3. In the suit, application for temporary injunction submitted by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.10.2003, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner could have approached the appellate forum by preferring an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Civil Suit No.349-A/2003 was withdrawn vide Annexure P-11 on the ground that petitioner wished to approach the alternative forum. It is amply clear from Annexure P-11 that the suit was not withdrawn unconditionally. Although, it is mentioned in this order that the petitioner wanted to avail the remedy of appeal before the Board of Revenue, this order may be treated as having permitted the petitioner to avail other efficacious remedy. Although, petitioner had prayed for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to prefer appeal before the Board of Revenue, a liberty was granted to him for instituting a suit afresh. This was never prayed for by the petitioner as revealed in Annexure P-11 itself. Submission of learned counsel for respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable for not having instituted a suit, does not carry much force; firstly, because the Court of Civil Judge Class-II itself has mentioned in Annexure P-11 that the plaintiff-petitioner intended to prefer an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Without considering this prayer, Civil Suit No. 349-A/2003 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Thus, the liberty granted to the petitioner was contrary to his prayer. Without considering this prayer, Civil Suit No. 349-A/2003 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Thus, the liberty granted to the petitioner was contrary to his prayer. However, in the facts and circumstances, order contained in Annexure P-11, may be treated as having allowed the plaintiff-petitioner to avail any other alternative efficacious remedy. Moreover, I have found in succeeding paragraphs that lease of the subject land was allotted in contravention of mandatory provisions of the procedure prescribed for leasing out the tank and that respondent authorities have made allotment of the subject tank to the respondent No.3 in contravention of mandatory provisions of law. This Court is of the opinion that petitioner cannot be precluded from seeking justice in writ jurisdiction. This apart, petition having already been admitted on 8.7.2004, it would not be proper to dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy. I may successfully refer for this purpose the decision of the apex Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain v. Income-TaxOfficer Bareilly [ AIR 1971 SC 33 ], wherein, it has been held that the dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable, would be unjustifiable when the petition was entertained and was heard on merits. Reliance on the decision has been placed by this Court in series of decisions. Illustratively, I may refer to the decision in the case of Tata Exports Ltd. v. The Union of India and others [ 1986 JLJ 48 = 1986 MPLJ 561 ]. 5. It is admitted by Shri Bisen, learned Government Advocate, that the procedure of allotment of lease of tanks for the purpose of fishing and fish cultivation is prescribed in the Gazette Notification dated 24.2.1995 contained in Annexure P-2. Clauses of Annexure P-1 relevant for the purpose of present writ petition are to the following effect: "Clause 1.3 : Zila Panchayat would be responsible for development and management of water tanks having the area of more than 100 hectares, but not more than 2000 hectares. Clause 2.3 : Water tank must be allotted essentially to the Co-operative Societies which are situated within the periphery of 8 kms. from water tank. Clause 5.1 : Zila Panchayat shall make proclamation by beat of drums for allotment of water tanks with simultaneous issuance of advertisement in newspapers. Clause 2.3 : Water tank must be allotted essentially to the Co-operative Societies which are situated within the periphery of 8 kms. from water tank. Clause 5.1 : Zila Panchayat shall make proclamation by beat of drums for allotment of water tanks with simultaneous issuance of advertisement in newspapers. Minimum 15 days are to be provided in the advertisement for making applications." 6. In reply, respondents have submitted two news items published in newspaper "Desh Bandhu" dated 24.1.2001 and "Nav Bharat" dated 9.8.2000 annexed as Annexure R-l & R-2 respectively. Shri Bisen learned Government Advocate, on the strength of Annexure R-l and R-2 contended that there was compliance of Clause 5.1 of Annexure P-l and the procedure prescribed in the said clause will be deemed to have been sufficiently complied with. 7. Clause 5.1 mandatorily requires a Zila Panchayat to make proclamation for grant of water tank for its leasing out. A simultaneous duty has been imposed on Zila Panchayat to issue advertisement in newspapers for the same purpose providing thereby minimum 15 days for making applications. A proclamation is to be obviously made by beat of drums unless otherwise provided. This is with an object of making the intention of Zila Panchayat of leasing out tank known to all the intended applicants so that firstly, it may not escape from the notice of any aspirant. Secondly, it has an object of achieving maximum revenue for Zila Panchayat/State Government. Neither in the return of the respondents, nor in the impugned order contained in Annexure P-8, there is a mention that Zila Panchayat had caused proclamation to be made by beat of drums for allotment of subject tank by way of lease. 8. As regards Annexure R-l & R-2, it may be seen that they are, merely, news items published on 9.8.2000 and 24.1.2001 respectively. There would be a marked distinction between an advertisement issued by Zila Panchayat and a news item published in respect of activities of Zila Panchayat. Clause 5.1 of Annexure P-l mandates that a Zila Panchayat while making proclamation for the purposes of grant of Patta of water tank shall, simultaneously, issue advertisement in newspapers. Such an advertisement is to be necessarily issued under the signature of the officer concerned of Zila Panchayat. Obviously, such an advertisement would carry authenticity. Clause 5.1 of Annexure P-l mandates that a Zila Panchayat while making proclamation for the purposes of grant of Patta of water tank shall, simultaneously, issue advertisement in newspapers. Such an advertisement is to be necessarily issued under the signature of the officer concerned of Zila Panchayat. Obviously, such an advertisement would carry authenticity. On the other hand, news item published in a newspaper is, merely, hearsay in nature and has no authenticity. According to clause 5.1, an advertisement is required to be issued in newspapers simultaneously with the proclamation. The words "News Papers" have been employed in the said Clause in plural which makes it clear that there shall be a publication of advertisement in more than one newspaper simultaneously. There is a period of more than 5-1/2 months between the news items published in Annexure R-2 and R -1. Thus, besides being unauthentic in nature, it cannot be said that there was a publication in more than one newspaper in simultaneous manner. 9. It is a trite law that when an act is required to be done strictly adhered to. Accordingly, when it is required mandatorily vide Clause 5.1, then the same ought to have been followed strictly and the proclamation for grant of lease with respect to the subject water tank was to be made with simultaneous issuance of advertisements in more than one newspaper. This having not been done, the grant of lease of the subject tank to respondent No.3 is not sustainable. Needless to say, that Annexure R-1 and R-2 do not fulfil the requirements of Clause 5.1 neither in reality nor in letter and spirit. The same cannot be equated to the advertisement, liable to be issued under Clause 5.1. 10. Clause 2.3 and the note appended thereto make it clear that a registered Fishermen Co-operative Society situated within the periphery of 8 kms from a tank, is entitled to grant of lease on preferential basis. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner society is situated within the periphery of 8 kms from the subject tank. On the other hand, respondent No.3 is situated at a distance of 12 kms therefrom as revealed in Annexure P-4. Thus, the petitioner could have obtained the lease of the subject tank to the exclusion of respondent No.3 by virtue of clause 2.3. 11. On the other hand, respondent No.3 is situated at a distance of 12 kms therefrom as revealed in Annexure P-4. Thus, the petitioner could have obtained the lease of the subject tank to the exclusion of respondent No.3 by virtue of clause 2.3. 11. Although, it has been stated by the respondents that the petitioner being a defaulter stood disqualified from participating in lease proceedings in respect of subject tank, learned Government Advocate could not point out any specific provision in Annexure P-l or any other legal provision elsewhere which makes a defaulter disqualified from participating in the proceedings for fresh allotment of water tank. Moreover, had there been due proclamation and advertisement in newspapers in pursuance of Clause 5.1, the petitioner would have a chance to deposit the amount of default which would have enabled the Zila Panchayat/State Government to recover its dues and could have allowed the petitioner to participate for obtaining the lease of the subject tank. Since no provision was pointed out by the respondents making a defaulter disqualified from participating in fresh allotment, objection of respondents on this ground is also not acceptable. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is, hereby, allowed. The order of approval of allotment passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 13.12.2002 contained in Annexure P-5 and order of Commissioner dated 25.8.2003 contained in Annexure P-8 are, hereby, quashed. Respondent No.2 is, hereby, directed to make allotment of the subject tank afresh after making strict compliance of the procedure prescribed in Annexure P-l. No order as to costs.