JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard. 2. Leaned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to array State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Fisheries as respondent No. 3. 3. Permission is granted. 4. Correction be made during the course of day. 5. Notice on behalf of respondent No.3 has been accepted by Sri Paresh Tripathi, Addl.C.S.C. Apart from the normal mode of service, the petitioner would be at liberty to serve dasti upon the respondent No.1. 6. The issue involved in the writ petition is of a great importance. Fishing rights have been granted pursuant to the Government Order dated 18.07.2008 by way of lease/license deed executed by the Authority concerned in favour of the petitioner (annexed as annexure No.2 to the writ petition). 7. In lease deed in clause 1, schedule of payment has been provided. According to the petitioner, he fails to make the payment in time for the year 2011-12. Therefore, he applied for extension of time for making payment as per clause 2 of the said document. The petitioner’s case is that the authority can only ask the interest on the defaulted amount but arbitrarily passed impugned order and issued a direction to furnish security of one Crore. 8. Learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing on behalf of State has vehemently contended that the contract which was made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 07.05.2011 as it reveals by annexure No.5 of the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the work was given to the guarantor of the petitioner Yashpal Singh Gill from the petitioner Fareed Begh. Thereafter, Uttarakhand State Matsya Palan Vikas Abhikaran/ respondent No.1 has issued a direction to the guarantor vide order dated 16.03.2012 that the license of fisheries in Tumadia reservoir is issued only upto 30.06.2012, the remaining period of the year 2011-12 and that the amount has to be paid by the guarantor as per schedule mentioned in the letter. If the amount is not paid, the contract would be deemed to be cancelled and the reservoir would be re-auctioned. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Minister of Uttarakhand, Ministry of Fishing that further amount be realized in easy installments on 20.04.2012 the Hon’ble Minister has directed to the Secretary, Fisheries to take action for extension the time in accordance of law. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Minister of Uttarakhand, Ministry of Fishing that further amount be realized in easy installments on 20.04.2012 the Hon’ble Minister has directed to the Secretary, Fisheries to take action for extension the time in accordance of law. It reveals that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Minister, which was made on the representation the petitioner dated 20.04.2012, subsequently, the petitioner has also submitted a representation on 23.05.2012. On which the respondent No.1 took a decision to extend the time subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes the guarantee of one crore upto 31.05.2012 in favour of the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. 9. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned that the amount of Rs.84,40,120/-for the remaining period of 2011-12 has to be deposited. Thereafter, the order was also passed on 31.05.2012 on the request made by the petitioner on 30.05.2012 for extension of time to furnish the bank guarantee and time was sought upto 10.06.2012 and State extended the time subject to the condition, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee of one crore upto 10.06.2012 in favour of the respondent No.1 and also deposit the defaulted amount of Rs.84,40,120/- before 30.06.2012. In case the amount is not deposited as directed above and bank guarantee is not furnished, the license would automatically deemed to be cancelled. 10. Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended in reply that there is also clause 4 of the Government Order to furnish the security and according to the Government Order, the security was also furnished and the same is lying with the department. As per clause 4 of the Government Order, respondent No.1 may realize 4% interest on the defaulted amount. The facts of the case at hand are peculiar in nature. Since petitioner has failed to comply the terms of contract, the arrangement was made to continue with the contract to operate the work of fisheries in reservoir to the Guarantor of the petitioner, since the petitioner has not paid the amount as per schedule mentioned in the Government Order, therefore, the time extension is moved by the petitioner himself. After considering the facts, the Government has taken decision to extend the contract if the petitioner furnishes the security of one crore. After considering the facts, the Government has taken decision to extend the contract if the petitioner furnishes the security of one crore. Considering the aspect of amount, Rs.84,40,120/- has to be recovered from the petitioner to secure the amount, this condition was imposed for the year 2011-12. Therefore, Addl.C.S.C. is directed to seek instructions and call the responsible officer with record. 11. Respondent No.1 shall also explain in his counter affidavit how the License/lease deed can be executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper in favour of any person without payment of requisite stamp fee under Article 35(b) of Schedule 1B of the Stamp Act and without Registration which is compulsory as per clause 6 of the Government Order and Section 17 of Registration Act in view of the judgment of Larger Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Smt. Guddi Vs. State of U.P. and others [1997(2) AWC 1311] and in view of the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others [2005(99) RD 823]. 12. Put up this petition on 17.07.2012 for further order/admission. Intimation shall be given to the respondent No.1 to produce the entire record relating to the case through respondent No.3 well in time so that the respondent No.1 produces the record before this Court on 17.07.2012.