JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a Co-operative Society of Fishermen Community. This society is a “Tehseel” Level Society. It has challenged the lease given in favour of another society i.e. respondent No. 5 – “Sahkari Matsya Jeevi Samiti” Ltd., which is also a society of fishermen community but at a village level. The S.D.M, Roorkee vide order dated 20.05.2014 allotted fishing right of a pond situated in Village Chudiyala Mohanpur, Roorkee in favour of respondent No. 5, for a period of ten years. This order, which is presently under challenge before this Court, has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2014 in the present Writ Petition, by the following orders:- “In peculiar facts and circumstances, I direct that any contract/agreement, in question, granted in favour of respondent No. 5 shall not be given effect to till next date of listing and respondent no. 5 shall not undertake any fishery activity pursuant to the said agreement/contract.” 2. The State of Uttarakhand as well as the private respondent No. 5 has filed its counter affidavits before this Court. The principle challenge of the petitioner is that the proceedings and the manner in which the pond has been allotted to respondent No. 5, is flawed as it is alleged that there was no proper publication of the said allotment by the concerned Officer. The amount on which the lease has been given is a meager amount of `2,554/- per annum per hectare whereas on the last occasion the same pond was given on lease for `15,500/- per annum per hectare. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that this would cause a loss of revenue to the State and the State Authorities have distributed State largesse in a totally arbitrary manners in order to give benefit to respondent No. 5. 3. The respondent No. 5, however, in its counter affidavit emphasis only on one aspect, which is that the entire lease of such pond is to be given admittedly under a Government Order of the State of U.P., which is also applicable in the State of Uttarakhand i.e. dated 04.01.1994, which clearly stipulates that while giving such rights, preference will be given to a society of members of fishing community, of the same village where the pond is situated, and thereafter to a “tehseel” level society, and so on. 4. 4. Admittedly, the pond is situated in the Gaon Sabha Chudiyala Mohanpur, District Roorkee and respondent No. 5 is the only Co-operative Society of Fishermen in Village Chudiyala Mohanpur. Therefore, the respondent’s society, has the first charge over the said pond and it matter little as to on what rates the lease has been given to them, inasmuch as giving of such right is for the welfare of the fishermen community and the primary aim of the State here is not to earn revenue out of it. Therefore, so far as the claim of respondent no. 5 over the pond is concerned it is over and above that of the petitioner. 5. All the same, the counsel for the petitioner also states that although under the Government Order dated 04.01.1994 first preference may be given to the society of the same village and admittedly respondent No. 5 is a registered society of same village, yet the Chairman of the said society, who is a person of influence and he matters the most is not in a bona fidely engaged in fishing, but he is a “trader” and a merchant and presently runs a shop at Bhagwanpur, Roorkee. In the light of the Government Order the first preference is given to a village level society provided it is a bona fide society of fishing community of villagers. What is actually happening, the petitioner would state, is that the Chairman of the Society whose name is Vijay Kumar sublets the lease right to others defeating the very purpose of the Government Order dated 04.01.1994, which is for the welfare of the Community. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the counsels, this Court is of the opinion that as per the Government Order dated 04.01.1994 first preference is liable to be given to a Registered Cooperative Society of Fishing Community of the same village, on which the pond is situated and on which there is no doubt. But it is also true that such a society must be of bona fide member of the fishing community and it could not be the intention of the State and in the garb of a society, powerful persons will abuse the process of law, thereby subletting the lease right or a third party. 7. But it is also true that such a society must be of bona fide member of the fishing community and it could not be the intention of the State and in the garb of a society, powerful persons will abuse the process of law, thereby subletting the lease right or a third party. 7. For this, however, the petitioner has a remedy to file an application before the Collector, who shall hear the grievance of the petitioner under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. Hence it would be proper that the matter be disposed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector, District Haridwar, who shall hear the matter under provisions of Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He should give hearing to both, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. The first determination should be as to whether the respondent society is the only bona fide registered society of fishermen community of village Gaon Sabha Chudiyala Mohanpurof Tehseel Roorkee and if it is so after removing all doubts, the second determination as to whether the said society is working in the bona fide interest of fishing community. In case he comes to the conclusion that the said society is a bona fide society, there should be no difficulty and in case he comes to the conclusion that more than one society are present in the village then he would look into the procedure and the validity whether such procedure have been rightly followed. After making such determination he should pass speaking order, in accordance with law. 8. Let same be done as expeditiously as possible but definitely within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Interim order granted by this Court shall remain in operation, however, it shall be automatically vacated on the date such a decision will be taken by the Collector. 10. It is also made clear that the interim order dated 19.09.2014 is modified to the extent that since respondent No. 5 has already invested in the matter. 9. Interim order granted by this Court shall remain in operation, however, it shall be automatically vacated on the date such a decision will be taken by the Collector. 10. It is also made clear that the interim order dated 19.09.2014 is modified to the extent that since respondent No. 5 has already invested in the matter. Fishes, which have been purchased from the Fishery Department and are in the pond since they need regular feeding and cleaning, they shall be permitted to do that only under vigilance and control of the Collector so that the respondent cannot take out any fish from the pond till the disposal of the matter.