AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Khare, J.
This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.2.1999 (Annexure P.10) of Respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Rewa, by which he has set-aside the order dated 17.2.1997 of the Collector and order dated 2.11.1995 of the Respondent No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Amarpatan.
The Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are the two rival Cooperative Societies of fishermen. By the agreement dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure R-8) the Respondent No. 5 was granted Patta of Mukundpur tank by the Respondent No. 4 for a period of seven years for the purpose of fishing. The Respondent No. 5 Society was given notice dated 18.10.1995 (Annexure R-1) by the Respondent No. 4 proposing cancellation of this Patta on the ground that there were "serious complaints" against the said society. In this notice it is not mentioned specifically what were those complaints. The copy of the resolution dated 16.10.1995 (Annexure R-2) of the Janpad Panchayat, Amarpatan also does not show what were those complaints. The Respondent No. 5 submitted the reply dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure R-3) denying that there was any irregularity on Its part. I n this reply it was also mentioned that the Respondent No. 5 has invested a huge amount in cleaning the tank and putting in it the seeds of the fish and it would be very arbitrary if the Patta is cancelled. It appears that some inquiry was held behind the back of the Respondent No. 5 and the Patta was cancelled by the order dated 2.11.1995 (Annexure R-2). In this order also it is not mentioned what was the irregularity that was committed by the Respondent No. 5. It is also not mentioned therein that there was any breach of the terms of the agreement dated 8.5.1995. On 2.11.1995 the Patta was granted in favour of the Petitioner for a period of ten years as per agreement Annexure P-3. An amount of Rs. 8085/- has been deposited by the Petitioner on 9.11.1995.
The Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Collector, Satna, which was dismissed by order dated 17.2.1997 (Annexure P-9). However, the Commissioner, Rewa, has set-aside the order of the Collector and the Janpad Panchayat.
The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. The Commissioner, Rewa, has relied upon Clause 17 of the agreement dated 8.5.1995 (Annexure R-8) which provides that in case of breach of any of the terms of the agreement of Deputy Director (Fisheries) can cancel the Patta after giving 30 days(sic) That remedy was not availed of by the Janpad Panchayat. Further there is provision for arbitration by the Director of Fisheries in Clause 21 of the Agreement. That remedy was also not resorted to. Thus there was no independent application of mind on the point whether the Respondent No. 5 has committed the breah of the contract. The Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat says in his notice dated 18.10.1995 that there were complaints of "serious irregularities" against the Respondent No. 5 but the details of such irregularities are not given in this notice. That is also not given in the resolution dated 16.10.1995 (Annexure R-2) of the Janpad Panchayat. What reply could be expected from the Respondent No. 5 if no detail of the alleged irregularity or breach of the terms of the contract is given ? In the order dated 2.11.1995 (Annexure P-2) the Chief Executive Officer does not spell out what was the irregularity or which condition of the agreement was broken by the Respondent No. 5. In this Court the Respondent No. 4 has not filed any return to justify its action. Therefore, the cancellation of Patta in favour of the Respondent No. 5 could not be done.
The Commissioner, Rewa, has rightly held that the cancellation of the Patta in favour of the Respondent No. 5 was not proper. The cancellation of the Patta was a serious matter and it could not be done so lightly by the Respondent No. 4. He has not tried to justify the cancellation before this Court. In case the Petitioner has been put to any loss its remedy is against the Respondent No. 4.
The petition is dismissed.