JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. – Heard Sri R. D. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for opposite party Nos 1, 2 and 3, Sri Azad Khan for opposite party No.4 and Sri Hari Om Singh for opposite party No.5. 2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 23.3.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner, as contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition. By this order the revision No.1114 of 2012-13 under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, District Ambedkar Nagar has been allowed and the order passed by Additional Collector, Ambedkar Nagar dated 8.1.2003 was set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the talab bearing Gata No.887Da having area 17.1730 hectares, Gata NO.848 Ka having area 6.1580 hectares and Gata No.856 Kha having area of 35.1410 hectares situated in Village Panchayat - Sandaha Majgawan, Block Ram Nagar, Tehsil-Alapur, District Ambekdar Nagar were directly allowed to opposite party No.5 for fishing rights for a period of ten years on the basis of resolution made by the Gram Panchayt Sandaha Majgawan and the same has been approved by the Deputy Collector, Alapur on 4.5.2011 and an authority letter dated 31.5.2011 was also issued in favour of opposite party No.5. Being aggrieved petitioner's Samiti filed an appeal for cancellation of aforesaid talab before the Additional District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar. Petitioner submitted relevant material to prove the arrears of rent against opposite party No.5 on which basis Additional District Magistrate called a report from tehsil authorities in which it was found that huge amount is due against opposite party No.5 towards the arrears of rent of the aforesaid talab. The two appeals filed by the petitioners against the allotment of the talab were decided by Additional District Magistrate vide two separate orders dated 8.1.2013 and set aside the illegal allotment made in favour of opposite party No.5. In respect of talab bearing Gata No.184 Kha no revision was filed against the order of Additional District Judge which attained finality but in respect of talab bearing gata No.847 Da opposite party No.5 filed revision bearing Revision No.1114/2012-13 before Commissioner, Faizabad Division against order dated 8.1.2013 in which interim order was grant in favour of opposite party No.5 on 28.3.2013. Being aggrieved against the order dated 28.3.2013 the petitioner filed a writ petition No.2778 (M/S) of 2014 in which this Court vide order dated 7.5.2014 directed the Commissioner to decide the aforesaid revision within a period of three months. When the revision was not decided within this time, petitioner filed a contempt petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.3.2015 was passed allowing the revision of opposite party No.5. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order of allotment of patta for fisheries rights to opposite party No.5 on mainly three legal grounds. Firstly, the petitioner says that the fisheries lease has been settled without any auction, wide publication or advertisement in the news papers. Secondly, fisheries rights have been settled in favour of opposite party No.5 despite the admitted fact by the Collector that opposite party No.5 is a defaulter of land revenue to the tune of Rs. 18,73,000/- and odd, hence the fisheries rights ought not to have been settled with the society which was itself having a bad record and was a defaulter of land revenue. Thirdly, petitioner says that the fisheries rights were settled at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per hectare whereas it cold not have been settled for anything less than a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- per hectares as the law laid down by High Court passed in the matter of Babban v. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Ors., decided on 6th October, 2004, reported in 2004 (97) RD 675, in which the Court has directed that the fisheries' lease in future should be grant at the minimum rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per hectare per year. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.3, which is on record. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the District Magistrate has clearly mention that the fisheries rights patta has been grant in favour of opposite party No.5 without auction on the basis of the recommendations made by Tehsil authorities and the same was approved by S.D.M., Alapur on 4.5.2011. District Magistrate has not given any justification as to why despite the judgments of the Full Bench of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (3) UPLBEC 2487 , the District Magistrate has not followed the law laid down by the Full Bench. In paragraph 26 of the said judgment following observations have been made: - "26. In paragraph 26 of the said judgment following observations have been made: - "26. We are, thus, of the clear opinion that the directions issued by the State Government under Section 126 of 1950 Act read with Rule 115-A of 1952 Rules, as noted above, does not violate rights of any person under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the view expressed by the Division Bench in Panchoo's case (supra) and Abdul Gaffar's case (supra) in so far as they hold the settlement of fishing right only by way of public auction does not lay down the correct law. As noted above, the view in the aforesaid judgments as well as the view expressed in Ajai Sonkar's case (supra) and in Gram Panchayat Kanta's case (supra) that the renewal of lease is not permissible is absolutely correct and the same view has found favour with the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Feru's case (supra)." 6. Three things are very clear in this judgment. Firstly that opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in auction should be there. Naturally, if opportunity to all eligible persons has to be given there has to be wide publicity through news papers or any other means by which the people at large can know about the auction in the matter. Secondly, advertisement in news papers has also been given due importance in this judgment. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit the District Magistrate has clearly mention that no advertisement in news paper was ever published although some Dugdugi and Munadi was held for which no record is available. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit the District Magistrate has clearly accepted that a sum of Rs. 18,73,424.00 is due against opposite party No.5 in respect of which recovery certificate has been issued by the Collector, Ambedkar Nagar on 27.6.2014. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit District Magistrate has also clearly admitted that fisheries rights have been given in favour of opposite party No.5 for ten years at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per hectare per year and on the basis of the same patta was approved on 4.5.2011 and the same was registered on 25.5.2011. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit District Magistrate has also clearly admitted that fisheries rights have been given in favour of opposite party No.5 for ten years at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per hectare per year and on the basis of the same patta was approved on 4.5.2011 and the same was registered on 25.5.2011. From all the averments made in aforesaid paragraphs of the counter affidavit it is clear that all the grounds taken by the petitioner are well established against the authorities in favour of opposite party No.5. 7. The counter affidavit leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the fisheries rights which have been settled in favour of opposite party No.5 were in utter violation of the judgment and order of the High Court in Full Bench as well as of Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid judgments. The equity and fair play has also been given a go bye by allowing the fisheries rights in the hands of a person who owes approximately Rs. 19 lakhs as arrears of land revenue against the entity. No further observation or reasons need to be record after hearing and a clear admission of the District Magistrate that the actions of the opposite parties was stinking and illegal on the face of it. 8. So far the order of revisional court is concerned it is painful to state that none of the factual aspects have been dealt with by a senior officer like him. Although the order is very lengthy but the Court wonders as to how such a lengthy document can be written where there is no discussion on merit. No argument has been dealt with. Simply sermons have been given in a philosophical manner. 9. In view of above, the orders dated 23.3.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition, is set aside. 10. The District Magistrate is directed to have a fresh look in to the matter and settle the fisheries rights after due publication in accordance with the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (3) UPLBEC 2487 in letter and spirit taking as well as the judgment of Babban v. State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & Ors.(supra). 11. Writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.