JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Smt. Rashi Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner-Society is formed exclusively by women who are predominantly from fishermen community. According to the petitioner-Society, it has 52 women members. The petitioner-Society is registered with the District Fisheries Development Officer, Yavatmal and according to the petitioner-Society, it is the only Society formed exclusively by women members. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner-Society was given the contract of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Project from 01-6-2006 till 30-6-2011. According to the petitioner-Society, considering its exemplary work, the National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad selected it for implementation of the scheme for increasing the productivity of fishes under the Pilot Project financed by the Government of India. The documents in this context are placed by the petitioner-Society on the record. 4. The case of the petitioner-Society is that on 19-4-2011 it received Rs. 4,60,000/- i.e. 50% of the total amount of finance from the Government of India, which it utilized for introducing fish seeds in the tank during the period from 31-10-2010 to 27-2-2011. It is further stated by the petitioner-Society that its members have been given special training by the experts from the National Fisheries Development Board and the Senior Officers from Fisheries Department of Government of Maharashtra. 5. On 18-7-2011 the petitioner-Society was allotted the fishing rights over the tank in dispute by the Tank Allotment Committee for the period from 01-7-2011 till 30-6-2016. According to the petitioner-Society, the respondent No. 6-Society was interested in getting the fishing rights over the tank in dispute and therefore, its members started making false complaints against the petitioner-Society. The respondent No. 6-Society had filed Writ Petition 3643/2011 before this Court challenging the allotment of fishing rights to the petitioner-Society, in which this Court had issued notices for final disposal and after the respondents in that writ petition (including the present petitioner-Society) appeared and pointed out the falsity of the claim of the respondent No. 6-Society (petitioner in that writ petition), the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach any other appropriate forum available in law. 6. 6. It is submitted that after withdrawal of the writ petition, the respondent No. 6-Society filed an appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1960") praying that the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee taken on 18-7-2011 allotting the fishing rights in respect of the tank in dispute to the petitioner-Society be quashed and praying that the fishing rights be allotted to the respondent No. 6-Society (appellant in the appeal). The Commissioner of Fisheries by the order dated 14/22-8-2012 allowed the appeal. The order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries was challenged by the petitioner-Society before this Court in Writ petition No. 4670/2012. This Court by the judgment dated 28-1-2013 recorded that the order was passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries without giving any reason and therefore, it was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Fisheries for deciding the appeal afresh. 7. After the remand, the Commissioner of Fisheries has passed the impugned order. According to the petitioner-Society, though the impugned order was passed on 30-4-2013, it was not communicated either to the petitioner-Society or to the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries till 10-7-2013. It is submitted that by the impugned order dated 30-4-2013 the allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society is cancelled, however it was not made known to the petitioner-Society and when the office of the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries got information about the impugned order on 10-7-2013, the Tank Allotment Committee immediately took the decision to allot the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society on 11-7-2013. According to Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society, the haste shown by the Tank Allotment Committee in allotting the fishing rights in respect of the Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society speaks for itself. 8. The petitioner-Society has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries on 30-4-2013 cancelling the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank. The petitioner-Society has also challenged the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society. The petitioner-Society has prayed that the respondents be restrained from taking over the possession of the Waghadi Tank from the petitioner-Society. 9. The petitioner-Society has also challenged the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society. The petitioner-Society has prayed that the respondents be restrained from taking over the possession of the Waghadi Tank from the petitioner-Society. 9. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society has submitted that the challenge as raised on behalf of the respondent No. 6-Society is that the allotment of the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society could not have been challenged in appeal under Section 152 of the Act of 1960. In reply, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have stated that the Commissioner of Fisheries has the power to examine the grievance of the respondent No. 6-Society as made in the memorandum of appeal filed by them, by exercising his authority under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society has submitted that the contentions of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this regards cannot be accepted and the Commissioner of Fisheries cannot examine the legality and validity of the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. It is submitted that Section 154(1) of the Act of 1960 enables the State Government or the Registrar to examine the legality and validity of the decision or order passed by any subordinate officer and in the present case, there is neither any decision or order as contemplated by the provisions of Section 154(1) of the Act of 1960, nor the decision of allotment can be said to be a decision by the Officer/Officers subordinate to the Commissioner of Fisheries. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society has pointed out from the Government Resolution dated 25-2-1991 (page 183 of the writ petition) the constitution of the Tank Allotment Committee and has submitted that the representative at Sr. No. 5 as shown in the Government Resolution, who is part of the Tank Allotment Committee, is not an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Fisheries. The learned Advocate relied on the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1960, which explains the term 'Registrar' and 'his subordinates'. No. 5 as shown in the Government Resolution, who is part of the Tank Allotment Committee, is not an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Fisheries. The learned Advocate relied on the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1960, which explains the term 'Registrar' and 'his subordinates'. In support of his submissions that the Commissioner of Fisheries could not have entertained the appeal or revision filed by the respondent No. 6-Society, Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments given by this Court in the cases of: 1. Baburao Gangaram Gadiwad vs. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Returning Officer, Kolhapur and Ors, reported in 2003 Vol. 105(3) Bom. L.R. 552. 2. Rajabhau Govindasa Dongaongaokar, District Washim and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Cooperation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. reported in 2009 Vol. 111(1) Bom. L.R. 0236. 3. Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More and others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 99. 4. R.P. Sawant and others vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and another reported in 2002(1) Mh. L.J. 626. 5. Binayak Swain vs. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi and another reported in AIR 1966 SC 948 . 6. Beg Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726 . 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Society that the allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society being for the period of five years till 30-6-2016, the allotment could not have been cancelled by the Commissioner of Fisheries and it being a contract/agreement between the Government of Maharashtra and the petitioner-Society, it could be terminated only by filing a civil suit. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3322/2012. 11. It is submitted that the allotment of fishing rights over Waghadi Tank in favour of the petitioner-Society has been terminated with a premeditated intention of granting the fishing rights to the respondent No. 6-Society. The petitioner-Society has prayed that the impugned order and the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee taken on 11-7-2013 allotting the fishing rights in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society be quashed and the allotment of fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society be directed to be continued till 30-6-2016. 12. The petitioner-Society has prayed that the impugned order and the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee taken on 11-7-2013 allotting the fishing rights in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society be quashed and the allotment of fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society be directed to be continued till 30-6-2016. 12. Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society has submitted that as per the Resolution of the State Level Tank Allotment Committee passed on 09-7-2013, the power to cancel the allotment in respect of the tank having area of more than 201 Hectares is with the Commissioner of Fisheries. It is submitted that though the Commissioner of Fisheries may not be able to examine the challenges raised by the respondent No. 6-Society by exercising his powers under Section 152 or154 of the Act of 1960, the Commissioner of Fisheries can examine the grievance made by the respondent No. 6-Society and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 6-Society under Section 152 of the Act of 1960 can be considered as a complaint. Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society has submitted that the decision of the Commissioner of Fisheries dated 30-4-2013 can be challenged by the petitioner-Society in appeal before the State Government according to condition No. 4.2 of the Resolution passed by the State Level Tank Allotment Committee on 09-7-2013. It is submitted that the petitioner-Society is having alternate efficacious remedy available to challenge the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries and therefore, the writ petition need not be entertained. 13. Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society has submitted that the respondent No. 6-Society had made a complaint to the Commissioner of Fisheries pointing out that the Tank Allotment Committee had taken the decision of allotment of fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society, giving a go-bye to the conditions incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 15-10-2001. It is submitted that as per condition No. 2 incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 15-10-2001, it is incumbent for the concerned authority/authorities to auction the tank, which was not done while allotting fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank to the petitioner-Society. 14. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 6-Society that the Tank Allotment Committee had not verified the audit reports of the petitioner-Society as required by the Government Resolution dated 03-8-2004. 14. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 6-Society that the Tank Allotment Committee had not verified the audit reports of the petitioner-Society as required by the Government Resolution dated 03-8-2004. It is submitted that the petitioner-Society had sublet the fishing rights to Shivnath Fishing in breach of the condition No. 4.4 of the Agreement and in violation of the condition No. 5 of the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society has submitted that the Commissioner of Fisheries has recorded the findings of fact that the allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society was not in accordance with the norms laid down by the State Government and there was breach of the terms and conditions by the petitioner-Society and these findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Fisheries cannot be interfered with by this Court in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that after the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner-Society, the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank are given to the respondent No. 6-Society and it is conducting its business without there being any complaint from anybody. It is submitted that considering all these aspects, the writ petition be dismissed. 15. Ms. Tajwar Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has supported the impugned order and the subsequent decision of the Tank Allotment Committee granting the fishing rights in respect of the Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society. It is submitted that the petitioner-Society had not raised the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Fisheries in the earlier round of litigation and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Fisheries and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner-Society at this stage to contend that the order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries is without jurisdiction. 16. The submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 6 that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of appeal before the State Government available, is required to be dealt with. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that as per condition No. 4.2 of the Resolution passed by the State Level Tank Allotment Committee on 09-7-2013, the decision of the Commissioner can be challenged in appeal before the State Government. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that as per condition No. 4.2 of the Resolution passed by the State Level Tank Allotment Committee on 09-7-2013, the decision of the Commissioner can be challenged in appeal before the State Government. It is settled law that the adjudicatory powers can be conferred on the Courts, Tribunals or Authorities only by law made by the Legislature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment given in the case of Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More and others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 99 has recorded in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 as follows. "26. But the powers of the State to exercise executive powers on a par with the legislative powers of the legislature, is "subject to the provisions of this Constitution". The provisions of the Constitution, namely, Articles 233, 234 and 247 for constituting subordinate courts, and Articles 323-A and 323-B for constituting tribunals by law made by the legislature, make it clear that judicial tribunals shall be created only by statutes or rules framed under authority granted by the Constitution. 27. If the power to constitute and create judicial tribunals by executive orders is recognised, there is every likelihood of tribunals being created without appropriate provisions in regard to their constitution, functions, powers, appeals, revisions and enforceability of their orders, leading to chaos and confusion. There is also very real danger of citizen's rights being adversely affected by ad hoc authorities exercising judicial functions, who are not independent or competent to adjudicate disputes and render binding decisions. Therefore, the executive power of the State cannot be extended to creating judicial tribunals or authorities exercising judicial powers and rendering judicial decisions. 28. Neither the Constitution nor any statute empowers a High Court to create or constitute quasi-judicial tribunals for adjudicating disputes. It has no legislative powers. Nor can it direct the executive branch of the State Government to create or constitute quasi-judicial tribunals, otherwise than by legislative statutes. Therefore, it is not permissible for the High Court to direct the State Government to constitute judicial authorities or tribunals by executive orders, nor permissible for the State by executive order or resolution to create them for adjudication of rights of parties". Applying the same analogy, the State Level Tank Allotment Committee cannot confer the adjudicatory powers on the State Government de hors any foundation in any statute. Applying the same analogy, the State Level Tank Allotment Committee cannot confer the adjudicatory powers on the State Government de hors any foundation in any statute. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6 has not pointed out any statutory provision which authorities the State Level Tank Allotment Committee to confer the adjudicatory powers on the State Government. Therefore, the submission as made on behalf of the respondent No. 6 that the impugned decision can be challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the State Government is misdirected. 17. After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find that the Commissioner of Fisheries could not have exercised the powers under Section 152 of the Act of 1960 to consider the challenges as raised by the respondent No. 6-Society inasmuch as appeal under Section 152(1) of the Act of 1960 lies against the order or decision under Sections 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 21A, 29, 35, 77A, 78, 79, 88 and 105 of the Act of 1960. The decision of the Tank Allotment Committee to grant the fishing rights in respect of the Waghadi Tank to the petitioner-Society is not an order or decision under any of the above mentioned sections. 18. The Commissioner of Fisheries could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act of 1960 to examine the legality and validity of the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee granting fishing rights to the petitioner-Society. The State Government or the Registrar can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act of 1960 to examine the legality and validity of the decision or order passed by any subordinate officer. Section 3 of the Act of 1960 explains the term "Registrar" and "his sub-ordinates". Considering the constitution of the Tank Allotment Committee, specially the representative of the District Association, as member of the Tank Allotment Committee as per the Government Resolution dated 25-2-1991, it cannot be said that the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee is a decision of an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Fisheries. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Fisheries cannot be treated to be under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. 19. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Fisheries cannot be treated to be under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. 19. The decision of the Commissioner of Fisheries on the complaint made against the petitioner-Society, to cancel the allotment of fishing rights over the tank would be an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order as contemplated by the Explanation below Rule 18 of Chapter-XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and as the petition is under Article 226 also, it is required to be considered by the Division Bench in view of the provisions of Chapter XVII Rule 01(i) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. However, in the present case, the Commissioner of Fisheries has dealt with the matter as a quasi-judicial matter exercising his jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Act of 1960. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order, considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, on 22-7-2014 directing the office to verify and list the petition before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly the office has placed the matter before the Single Judge. 20. The submissions made by Shri A.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society that the Commissioner of Fisheries has the power to consider the complaint of the respondent No. 6-Society and to enquire as to whether the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Society is liable to be cancelled for breach of conditions of the allotment requires consideration. In my view, the Commissioner of Fisheries can enquire into the truthfulness of the complaint made against the allottee of the fishing rights. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I have examined the record. The conclusions of the Commissioner of Fisheries as recorded in the impugned order are at Page 159 of the writ petition. The Commissioner of Fisheries has recorded that while allotting the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society for the period from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, the action was not taken as required by condition No. 2 of the Government Resolution dated 15-10-2001. Condition No. 2 incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 15-10-2001 provides that if the tank in respect of which the fishing rights are to be allotted comes within the working area of more than one society, the allotment of tank shall be made by conducting the auction. Condition No. 2 incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 15-10-2001 provides that if the tank in respect of which the fishing rights are to be allotted comes within the working area of more than one society, the allotment of tank shall be made by conducting the auction. However, the respondents have not been able to point out that the petitioner-Society was put to notice by the Commissioner of Fisheries that the decision of the Tank Allotment Committee granting fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society is being quashed on the ground that the auction was not conducted. This had never been the complaint of the respondent No. 6-Society in the memorandum of appeal filed by it before the Commissioner of Fisheries. 21. Shri M.V. Samarth, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society has submitted that considering the status of the petitioner-Society that it is formed by women members exclusively and considering the exemplary work done by the petitioner-Society, the National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad selected it for implementing the scheme for increasing the productivity of fishes under the pilot project financed by the Government of India and the fact that the petitioner-Society received an amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- i.e. 50% of the total amount of finance and invested it for introducing the fish seeds in the Tank at Waghadi and the fact that the members of the petitioner-Society are given special training by the experts from the National Fisheries Development Board and the Senior Officers of Fisheries Department of Government of Maharashtra, the Tank Allotment Committee had taken the decision to allot the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank in favour of the petitioner-Society. Though the above submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner-Society are not supported by any material on the record, the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 6-Society or any other society eligible for making a claim for allotment of the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank, on the ground that they are deprived of making a claim for the fishing tank at Waghadi as the auction is not conducted shows that none of the other society was aggrieved by the allotment of the fishing rights over Waghadi Tank to the petitioner-Society. 22. The other conclusion of the Commissioner of Fisheries in the impugned order is that the guidelines issued by the National Fisheries Development Board were not followed. 22. The other conclusion of the Commissioner of Fisheries in the impugned order is that the guidelines issued by the National Fisheries Development Board were not followed. However, whether there is breach of any mandatory guideline or the guideline which is alleged to be violated is directory, is not considered by the Commissioner of Fisheries. Again the petitioner-Society was not put to notice about the issue considered against the petitioner-Society. 23. One of the reasons recorded in the impugned order for cancelling the allotment of the petitioner-Society is that the Tank Allotment Committee had not examined the audit reports of the petitioner-Society. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that the audit reports were not made available to it by the concerned authorities and the members of the petitioner-Society agitated in the matter and after intensive agitation, the audit reports were made available to it. Be that as it may, the Commissioner of Fisheries has not considered the factual aspects in this regards. 24. The main grievance of the respondent No. 6-Society before the Commissioner of Fisheries was that the petitioner-Society has sublet the fishing rights to Shivnath Fishing. The Commissioner of Fisheries has held that the petitioner-Society has sub-let the fishing rights to Shivnath Fishing. The petitioner-Society has been disputing the above allegations. The petitioner-Society has stated that Shivnath Fishing is not in existence. The impugned order does not refer to any relevant material and evidence on the basis of which the findings as recorded by the Commissioner of Fisheries that the petitioner-Society has sub-let the fishing rights to Shivnath Fishing, can be maintained. This Court by the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 4670/2012 on 28-1-2013 has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries on the ground that the order was not supported by any reason. Again the Commissioner of Fisheries has committed the same error. 25. Apart from this, the manner in which the proceedings in respect of cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Society and the decision taken by the Tank Allotment Committee on 11-7-2013 to allot the fishing rights in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society are taken, it is clear that the impugned decisions cannot be sustained. 25. Apart from this, the manner in which the proceedings in respect of cancellation of allotment made in favour of the petitioner-Society and the decision taken by the Tank Allotment Committee on 11-7-2013 to allot the fishing rights in favour of the respondent No. 6-Society are taken, it is clear that the impugned decisions cannot be sustained. It is undisputed that the order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries on 30-4-2013 was not communicated to the petitioner-Society and to the office of the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries till 10-7-2013. The order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries cancelling the allotment of the fishing rights in favour of the petitioner-Society was received by the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries on 10-7-2013 and the Tank Allotment Committee has taken the decision on 11-7-2013 to allot the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society. While taking the decision on 11-7-2013, the Tank Allotment Committee has overlooked all the guidelines and the norms for allotment of the fishing rights. It goes unexplained as to why the claim of the petitioner-Society for re-allotment of the fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank are not considered by the Tank Allotment Committee. The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6-Society has not been able to point out any provision which bars the petitioner-Society from staking claim for allotment of the tank again, after its earlier allotment is cancelled. The Tank Allotment Committee has recorded that out of the other two societies which could have made the claim for allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank, there is complaint against Jailaxmi Matsyavyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha that it has sub-let its rights to Vidarbha Matsyavyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha and therefore, it is not eligible for allotment of the tank. The Tank Allotment Committee has recorded that Abhudaya Matsyavyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha has given in writing that it is not interested in the Waghadi Tank allotment. The respondents have not been able to point out any material on the record that Jailaxmi Matsyavyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha was made known about the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society. 26. The respondents have not been able to point out any material on the record that Jailaxmi Matsyavyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha was made known about the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6-Society. 26. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries on 30-4-2013 cancelling the allotment of fishing rights in respect of Waghadi Tank in favour of the petitioner-Society is unsustainable in law. The decision of the Tank Allotment Committee taken on 11-7-2013 being the consequential decision after the allotment of the petitioner-Society is cancelled, it automatically goes. Therefore, the following order. i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows: (a) quash and set aside the said impugned Order, dated 04-7-2013, passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 12 of 2012, at Annexure 22' as also further decision taken by Tank Allotment Committee, granting fishing rights of the said Waghadi Tank to the respondent No. 6 Society, vide minutes of meeting, dated 11-7-2013 at Annexure 25', by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice." ii) The Agreement between the Government of Maharashtra and the petitioner-Society dated 25-7-2011 for the period from 01-7-2011 till 30-6-2016 is restored until it is cancelled by the competent authority in accordance with law. iii) The respondent No. 6-Society shall handover the possession of the Tank to the petitioner-Society forthwith. iv) The petitioner-Society shall be entitled for undertaking the fishing activities for the period of five years as per the Agreement dated 25-7-2011. The period for which the petitioner-Society was deprived of its fishing rights because of the impugned order shall be extended. I am fortified in my view by the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. And Others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726 . v) If the State is put to any monetary loss because of the fishing activities undertaken by the respondent No. 6-Society, the State Government shall conduct an enquiry in the matter after giving notice to the respondent No. 6-Society and recover the amount of loss, if any, from the respondent No. 6-Society. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.