ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Memo No.243 dated 04.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.4 whereby and where under the water reservoirs in the urban area has been directed to be handed over in favour of the municipality. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said water reservoirs/tanks/pokhars have been settled in favour of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 and in terms of the terms and conditions of the contract the petitioner is carrying out the fishing work in the aforesaid tanks but all of a sudden the impugned decision has been taken on 26.05.2016 by which the tanks have been decided and directed to be transferred in favour of the municipality in terms of the provisions of Circular No.4125 dated 17.10.2013, therefore, the ground has been raised that when the terms and conditions of the contract was in subsistence during the course when the impugned order has been passed, the same cannot be done in course of subsistence period of the contract, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent, pressing the same Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned decision has been taken in terms of the Cabinet decision which has been issued vide Memo No.4125 dated 17.10.2013 and the said Cabinet decision was taken in pursuance to the provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 wherein the provision has been made about vesting of property which includes public tanks/reservoirs also, therefore, if the Cabinet has taken a decision to follow the statue and in terms thereof any decision has been taken, the same cannot be interfered with. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the tanks in question has been settled in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016-17 by the order in this regard by the competent authority but in course of subsistence period of the contract the impugned decision has been taken to transfer the tanks in favour of the municipality by taking aid of the decision taken by the State of Jharkhand as under Circular No.4125 dated 17.10.2013. 5. 5. The Circular dated 17.10.2013 which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit wherefrom it transpires that the said decision has been taken in pursuance to the provision made under Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. The provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 provides the provision about vesting of the property which reads hereunder as:- “126. Vesting of property – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the movable and the immovable properties and all interest whatsoever nature or kind therein of the following categories within the limits of a municipal area, shall vest in the municipality– a. Public lands not belonging to any Government department, statutory body, b. Public tanks, streams, reservoirs, and wells; c. Public markets and slaughterhouses; d. Public sewers and drains, channels, tunnels, culverts and watercourses in, alongside, or under, any street; e. Public streets and pavements, and stones and other materials thereon, and also trees on such public streets or pavements not belonging to any private individual, f. Public parks and gardens, including squares and public open spaces, g. Public ghats on rivers or streams or tanks, h. Public lamps, lamp-posts and apparatus connected there with, or appertaining thereto, i. Public places for disposal of the dead, excluding those governed by any specific law in this behalf, j. Solid wastes collected on a public street or public place, including dead animals and birds, and k. Stray animals not belonging to any private person.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the public tanks or reservoirs are also the subject matter about vesting in the municipalities. 6. The authorities while passing the impugned decision has complied with the decision taken by the State Government as contained in the aforesaid Circular No.4125 dated 17.10.2013 which is based upon the statutory provision as contained under Section 126 of the JharkhandMunicipal Act, 2011. 7. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that if any Act has been inacted upon, it is to be followed in its strict sense and there cannot be any deviation otherwise it will be said that the rule of law is not prevailing. 8. 7. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that if any Act has been inacted upon, it is to be followed in its strict sense and there cannot be any deviation otherwise it will be said that the rule of law is not prevailing. 8. If the authorities have taken a decision in terms of the statutory provision by issuing a Cabinet decision dated 17.10.2013 the same cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity unless it will be questioned by the aggrieved party on any valid ground but the Circular No.4125 dated 17.10.2013 is not under question in this writ petition. 9. Since the impugned decision has been taken basing upon the Circular dated 17.10.2013 which is based upon the provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, so long as the statutory provision as contained under Section 126 of the Act, 2011 or the Cabinet decision taken in terms thereof are in existence, decision if taken by the State authority in terms of the said provisions cannot be interfered with by the Court of law, otherwise, it will be said to be exceeding the jurisdiction. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits by taking aid of the statement made in the counter affidavit that the settlement made in favour of other persons of the reservoirs who have been allowed to continue with the settlement and the case of the petitioner is likewise, this factual aspect is not in dispute since the Circular No.4125 has been issued on 17.10.2013 basing upon the provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 but the question herein would be that if any thing has been done by the State authority which dehores the rule on that ground no relief can be granted to the subsequent person on the basis of the settled position of law that any illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and further Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisages positive equality and not the negative equality as has been held in the cases of Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 pr.8 and Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3640 pr.15, which reads hereunder as:- “8. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 pr.8 and Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 3640 pr.15, which reads hereunder as:- “8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. 15. Moreso, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 considered this issue and held as under: “It is settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to ….......................................................................................................administration impossible.” 11. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 12. Interlocutory application being I.A. No.4037 of 2019 also stands disposed of.