Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2245 (ALL)

Ram Pujan Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-07-30

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Impleadment application filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Vijai Bhan Singh holding brief of Sri R.C.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri R.P.Singh along with Sri S.N.Upadhyaya, who have filed impleadment application on behalf of Gajendra Singh and Mahendra Singh. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 12.7.2014 published in daily Hindi Newspaper 'Hindustan' insofar as pond having plot No. 2301/1(correct number is 2301/1/1) is concerned. 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 and 4 to extend the auctin date beyond 16.7.2014 as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper. 3. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 4. On 16.7.2014 this Court has passed the following order: "Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and counsel for the gaon sabha. The entire ground of challenge is that the advertisement was made on 12.7.2014 fixing the date 16.7.2014 for auction. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this is in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as equal opportunity has not been offered to the similarly situated persons. Prima facie, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel is directed to seek instructions in this matter. As prayed, put up this case on 30.7.2014 as fresh. In the meantime, the auction scheduled may be held, but it shall not be given effect to till 30.7.2014. Learned standing counsel as well as counsel for the gaon sabha are directed to inform this order to the Collector concerned, who may in due course, shall transmit the same to the concerned authorities. " 5. Pursuant thereto learned standing counsel has obtained instruction and shown it to the Court. In his submission there is no factual dispute with regard to the date of advertisement and dae of auction. " 5. Pursuant thereto learned standing counsel has obtained instruction and shown it to the Court. In his submission there is no factual dispute with regard to the date of advertisement and dae of auction. In his submission the writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the petitioner is a defaulter as he had not observed the conditions of the lease granted in his favour in the previous years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards the following observation made by the Full Bench decision of the this Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 (99) R.D. 823 and subsequent decisions referred in the name of Ram Kumar (supra) and other connected cases: "...Fisheries lease shall be settled strictly in accordance with Full Bench authority which clearly mandates that a date for public auction shall be advertised in news paper. It is needless to add that advertisement must appear at least about a week before the date of auction. However in case only one person belonging to preferential category comes forward on the advertisement date then fisheries lease shall be settled in his favour.." 7. In view of the fact that advertisement was made on 12.7.2014 fixing 16.7.2014 for auction. There is only gap of four days instead of a week. The auction was to be held in accordance with the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). Otherwise also it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it has denied the equal opportunity of participation because of short of time. 8. In view of forgoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent no.3 is directed to ensure the auction of the ponds in dispute within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to supply certified copy of the order of this Court to the Sub Divisional Magistrate within a period of two weeks. Learned standing counsel is also directed to communicate this direction within the same period to the Collector of the district.