Sanjay Misra, J.— Heard Sri A.C.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2, Sri D.D.Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Gram Sabha and Sri L.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Since all the respondents are represented, this writ petition is being decided finally today itself. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Soraon, District Allahabad as also the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner-II, Allahabad Region, Allahabad in Revision No.15 of 2012 (Ishwar Chandra Vs. Ram Dular and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted fishery lease for a period of 10 years with effect from 18.2.2001 to 17.02.2011 and for the said purpose lease-deed was duly executed between the petitioner and the State respondents. Thereafter fresh lease deed (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been executed and the petitioner has been granted fishery rights from 24.11.2011 to 23.11.2021. He submits that on a complaint made by the respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer initiated proceeding against the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving him any opportunity has passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2012, whereby the fishery lease of the petitioner has been canceled. Learned counsel states that he filed a Revision No. 15 of 2012 before the Additional Commissioner-II, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, which revision has also been illegally dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2012. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is in violation of the principle of natural justice and the revisional order dated 10.9.2012 having not considered the violation of principle of natural justice is liable to be set aside as also the revision was not maintainable before the Additional Commissioner-II, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it appears that the petitioner was earlier granted patta for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 18.2.2001 to 17.02.2011. On expiry of the aforesaid period of 10 years, it appears that the petitioner filed an application before the Authority for renewal of patta. On that application the authority on the date of holding camp has awarded fishery lease to the petitioner for another period of 10 years. On expiry of the aforesaid period of 10 years, it appears that the petitioner filed an application before the Authority for renewal of patta. On that application the authority on the date of holding camp has awarded fishery lease to the petitioner for another period of 10 years. It appears from the record that neither any advertisement was issued for grant of lease nor any application from other eligible persons were invited. It also appears that under the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 as affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (99) RD 823 the persons who are granted preference in the allotment of fishery rights were not given any opportunity since they have not been invited and the petitioner who was not belonging to the preferential category has been awarded fishery lease. From the circumstances, as has been recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it appears that no advertisement was issued regarding fishery lease. The petitioner made an application for renewal on expiry of his earlier fishery lease of 10 years. Clearly the aforesaid finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional has not been disputed in this writ petition nor learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to point out that any advertisement was issued for grant of fishery lease or that none of the preferential category candidates were available so as to enable the Sub-Divisional Officer to grant lease as per the Government Order dated 17.10.1995, which has been affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar's case. The fact that no notice was given to the petitioner while passing of the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer has clearly held that the award of patta to the petitioner on renewal application was neither sanctioned by the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 nor it has been sanctioned by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar's case. As such the fishery lease was obtained by the petitioner behind the back of the eligible persons by filing renewal application which could not be done legally hence such renewal was obtained by misrepresentation and fraudulently. Under such circumstances, notice to the petitioner or opportunity of hearing was not required to be given since it would amount to unnatural expansion of the principles of natural justice. Under such circumstances, notice to the petitioner or opportunity of hearing was not required to be given since it would amount to unnatural expansion of the principles of natural justice. The revisional court has affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and even if the revision filed by the petitioner is now canvassed to be not maintainable the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under such circumstance. The execution of the lease deed would also make no difference, where fishery lease was got executed by the petitioner by misrepresenting and obtaining the fishery lease on an application for renewal after expiry of old lease which has no sanction under law and is a fraudulent act. No interference is required in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. _____________