JUDGMENT Radheshyam is before this Court, assailing the validity of order dated 25.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8921 of 2015 (Radheshyam vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein learned Single Judge has not proceeded to accord any relief to the petitioner-appellant as has been asked by him and contrarily, he has proceeded to ask the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi, District Bhadodhi to initiate fresh proceedings for settlement of fishery leave over pond at Plot No.52-M measuring about 1.752 hectare situated in village Pure Manohar, Tehsil and District Bhadoni and complete the same within the time frame provided for. 2. From the side of the petitioner-appellant Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate before this Court submitted that an advertisement was made in 'Dainik Jagran' newspaper on 04.09.2012 along with other ponds situated in different village of concerned Tehsil and petitioner-appellant has participated therein and by virtue of his being highest bidder, he has been accorded lease for a period of ten years and pursuant thereto he has proceeded to invest huge money therein and thereafter he has not been permitted to perform fishery right upon the aforesaid pond and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner-appellant instead of proceeding to non-suit the claim of petitioner-appellant. 3. The Learned Single Judge has examined each and every aspect of the matter on the premises that no records are available and various disputed questions of fact are involved and the proceedings in question are in the teeth of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 that holds the filed for according bidders lease and once substantial justice are being sought to be done, then no interference be made. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging is that petitioner-appellant's specific case is that he has participated in the auction proceedings and by virtue of being the highest bidder, he has been accorded lease for a period of 10 years and he has invested a large amount in the same. This fact is accepted that inter-se parties till today lease deed has not at all been executed and this much fact has also come on record that the original records are not at all available. This fact is accepted that inter-se parties till today lease deed has not at all been executed and this much fact has also come on record that the original records are not at all available. It is true that there are some statement of fact coming forward which are suggesting that the proceedings has been held for according lease of fisheries and petitioner-appellant has participated in the said proceedings but no records are before this Court substantiating the said fact and learned Single Judge has clearly formed an opinion that whatever exercise has been undertaken, the same is in the breach of policy that holds the field of executing auction in question for bidders right. 5. Once such finding has been returned and there has been a claim of petitioner-appellant and an intervenor has also been before this Court counter-claiming such action in question, then in our opinion rightful order has been for generating revenue and helping the incumbents for participating in the said proceedings. With these, Special Appeal is dismissed.