JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Counter-affidavit filed by the learned standing counsel and rejoinder-affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the entire auction proceeding dated 25.6.2013 and the approval dated 27.6.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Azamgarh. 4. While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for settlement of fishery lease over pond No. 948 measuring about 0.482 hectare situated in Village Chhattarpur, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh, an advertisement was made on 9.6.2013 in newspapers dainik Amar Ujala and Hindustan, in which only on one application of respondent No. 5 an amount of Rs. 48,000/- was offered for the period of 10 years and the Tehsildar recommended for allotment of the pond in question in his favour and the same was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 27.6.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the proceedings of settlement of fishery lease, the entire proceeding was conducted at the Tehsil Headquarters on 26.6.2013, but there is no signature of any Officer on the bid sheet of 25.6.2013. However, from the perusal of the proceeding, it transpires that recommendation was made on 26.6.2014 for execution of lease, which was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 27.6.2014. Photo stat copy of the aforesaid proceeding has been brought on record of the writ petition, which contains the signatures of three persons, mentioning the date as 2.2.2014. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire proceeding is farce and contrary to the provisions contained under the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(99) RD 823. The petitioner has further prayed that when the aforesaid proceeding was concluded, the petitioner’s lease was subsisting. The petitioner has further prayed that when the aforesaid proceeding was concluded, the petitioner’s lease was subsisting. Considering the same, on 26.3.2015, this Court has passed the following order: “Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during subsisting period of the petitioner’s lease which is going to expire on 20th April, 2015 a fresh lease has been executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 and he has been permitted to perform fishery right. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the subsisting period of lease of the petitioner no fresh lease could be executed. He further submits that respondent No. 5 is trying to interfere in the possession and to take out fish from the pond. Learned standing counsel is directed to seek instruction as to how during the subsisting period of lease of the petitioner a fresh lease has been executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 and how he has been permitted to perform fishery right. Put up this case as fresh on 2nd April, 2015. In case instruction are not sought by that time a heavy cost shall be imposed upon the respondent No. 3. Learned standing counsel shall try to get the entire record of the proceeding.” 6. The matter was again taken up on 2.4.2015 and the learned standing counsel was directed to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant thereto, learned standing counsel has filed counter-affidavit. 7. The facts giving rise to this case are that with respect to the aforesaid pond in question, earlier, a proceeding for settlement of fishing lease was initiated in the year 2005 and the petitioner has participated in the same and offered an amount of Rs. 24,000/- for a period of ten years on 22.3.2005. He was also required to deposit 1/4th of the amount, which he deposited. Thereafter, the recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner for execution of the lease, which was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 28.4.2005. The copy of the proceeding has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State, sworn by Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Tehsildar, Lalganj, Azamgarh, it is stated that after depositing 1/4th amount, the petitioner has neither deposited any installment, nor any lease in his favour has been executed. The copy of the proceeding has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State, sworn by Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Tehsildar, Lalganj, Azamgarh, it is stated that after depositing 1/4th amount, the petitioner has neither deposited any installment, nor any lease in his favour has been executed. It is also stated that since the petitioner has not been depositing any lease rent, the decision was taken for settlement of fresh lease. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was made on 9.6.2013 and at Tehsil Headquarters, proceeding was held on 25.6.2013, in which respondent No. 5 has offerred an amount of Rs. 48,000/- for the period of ten years, which was approved on 27.6.2014 by the Sub Divisional Officer. 9. The petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit has stated that after depositing the money, he has been permitted to perform the fishing right. Pursuant thereto, he has been functional till 27.6.2014 when the approval was made in favour of respondent No. 5. Thereafter, he started interference in the petitioner’s functioning. The matter was brought up in the notice of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. There, the State authority took the stand that the parties have entered into compromise. The letter dated 9.2.2015 sent by the District Magistrate to the Commission has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 10. On being confronted as to whether the petitioner has been operating the fishing right on the basis of any written lease-deed or only on the basis of the approval granted by the Sub Divisional Officer and oral permission given by the revenue authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fishery lease was executed in favour of the petitioner. This fact has been denied by the State-respondents in their counter-affidavit by stating that no lease was executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, in his rejoinder-affidavit, has not brought on record the copy of the lease-deed. However, from the perusal of the letter dated 9.2.2015 sent by the District Magistrate to the Commission, the factum of permission given by the revenue authorities to the petitioner for performing fishing right is established. 11. The question would be as to whether the revenue authorities could permit a person to perform fishing right without there being any valid lease. However, from the perusal of the letter dated 9.2.2015 sent by the District Magistrate to the Commission, the factum of permission given by the revenue authorities to the petitioner for performing fishing right is established. 11. The question would be as to whether the revenue authorities could permit a person to perform fishing right without there being any valid lease. As to whether, in absence of any valid lease, the petitioner could be permitted to perform the fishing right on the basis of the earlier approval given by the Sub Divisional Officer in his favour/oral permission? 12. The procedure for execution of fishery lease has been given in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 and the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). Neither in the Government Order, nor in the Full Bench decision, on which basis such rights are being performed, permits for performance of fishing right without there being any lease. Whatever has been done by the petitioner, was in collusion with the State authorities and that cannot be given a legal status to the petitioner. It is settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for perpetuating the illegalities on the basis of wrong orders. 13. In Gursharan Singh and others v. NDMC and others, JT 1996(1) SCC 647, the Apex Court held that “citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition.” The Apex Court has further observed that “Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.” 14. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.” 14. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and others, JT 1996 (8) SC 387, the Apex Court held as under : “Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents.” 15. In State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, JT 1997 (3) SC 450, the Apex Court observed as under : “The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e. benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing misappropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously “No”. In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right.” 16. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right.” 16. The Supreme Court has reiterated this view in the case of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, JT 2000 (5) SC 389 and following the aforesaid principles, the same view has further been taken by this Court in the case of Raghubansh Bihari Jauhari v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (7) ADJ 161 . 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify the petitioner’s performance of fishing right in absence of any valid fishery lease. Learned standing counsel pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2.4.2015, in his counter-affidavit, has disclosed the names of the Officers, Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Officers, who were posted in between 2005 to 2014 and permitted the petitioner to perform such right, but how they had permitted the petitioner to perform the fishing right, has not been disclosed in the counter-affidavit. 18. I am of the considered opinion that in absence of any valid fishery lease, a person cannot be permitted to perform fishing right in collusion with the revenue authorities and the gaon sabha taking shelter of oral order. Therefore, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to hold an inquiry in this regard and if necessary, recommend for disciplinary proceedings against the erring Officers/Officials, including the Gaon Sabha, who had been posted during these years and permitted such illegalities to continue for a long period. 19. In the writ petition, a prayer is made to quash the approval dated 27.6.2014 made in favour of respondent No. 5. In this regard, in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the lease before the Collector concerned. So far as the petitioner’s prayer with regard to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform fishing right upto 28.4.2015 (on which date, ten years period of petitioner’s lease is expiring) is concerned, that relief cannot be granted in absence of any valid lease. 20. So far as the petitioner’s prayer with regard to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform fishing right upto 28.4.2015 (on which date, ten years period of petitioner’s lease is expiring) is concerned, that relief cannot be granted in absence of any valid lease. 20. It is also observed, on the basis of the papers brought on record relating to grant of execution of fishery lease in favour of respondent No. 5, prima facie, it appears that the same is contrary to the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). In this regard also, even if the petitioner chooses not to file any application for cancellation of the lease, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh may in a suo motu proceeding examine the same and in case, he finds that everything is in order, then it is well and good, but for the same he has to record the reason and in case he finds that there is a procedural lapse from the stage of initiation of proceeding upto the execution of lease, after issuing notice to respondent No. 5, he may cancel the lease after hearing all concerned with the direction to Sub Divisional Officer concerned to initiate fresh proceeding for settlement of fishery lease requiring him to complete the same within a stipulated period. 21. In the last, it cannot be unnoticed that admittedly, the petitioner has been performing the fishing right since 28.4.2005 to 27.6.2014. The Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar concerned are directed to calculate the amount due on the petitioner and issue a demand notice to the petitioner to deposit the same. 22. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. 23. Certified copy of this order be given to Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel, free of cost, for necessary communication to the authorities concerned within a week. ——————