Bsident, Fiishermen Co-operative Society vs Collector West Godavari

Umamaheswaram, J.—This is an application for the issue of a writ to call for the records in Collector west Godavari District Eluru and to quash the orders passed by him granting to Respondent 3 the lease of fishery rights in Tamara Cheruvu of Dendulur village.

The case of the Petitioner is that the Government of Andhra by its order dated 24-5-1955, in G.O. No. 1130-A granted the rights of fishing in respect of six tanks and that the Collector of West Godavari at Eluru, by his order dated 14-6-1955 communicated to him that the lease of fishery rights in the six tanks of Dendlulur village was granted to the Petitioner for the year 1955 for Rs. 1175/-. He further states that for no valid reasons the Collector by his order dated 20-6-1955 modified the prior order and granted the lease of fishing rights in only five tanks excluding Tamara tank.

The main objection raised by the Government Pleader and Sri Neti. Subramanyam on behalf of Respondent 3 is that the proper remedy open to the Petitioner Lwa case of this description is to file a suit, a"a that I ought not to interfere in a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. They contour that the Government being the owner of the ranks was entitled to lease out the fishing rights to whomsoever they like in accordance with G.O No 200 Development Department dated 16-l-1950 and that if in the course of leasing out the Government violated the terms of the contract, the remedy b of the Petitioner is only one by way of suit for damages or for any other appropriate relief. I agree with this contention and hold that when there is an adequate remedy by way of suit, this Court ought not to interfere by means of a writ. In a similar case viz., Indian Tobacco Corporation and Others Vs. The State of Madras, (A), it was held by a Bench of the Madras High Court that Article 226 ought not to be invoked. It was pointed out therein that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an alternative remedy to the usual remedy by way of suit. That was a case where the Government entered into a contract with the Petitioner and the question was whether there was a violation of the terms of the contract. In 1954 Mad WN SN of recent cases at page CXVII, it was held by Rajamannar C.J. and" Rajagopalan Ayyangar J. that:

Where the Government is in the position of an ordinary lessor, the rights of the lessee, if any must be enforced in the usual course by resorting to an action at law and the remedy by way of application under Article 226, Constitution is misconceived.

To the same effect is the decision of the Punjab High Court in Chattar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (B). It was held that a writ of mandamus does not lie to enforce or restrain the performance of a contractual obligation. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner con tended that he is not seeking relief by a manta muss but only to quash the subsequent order of the Collector dated 20-6-1955. In my opinion, that does not make any difference. If the Government had granted the fishery rights in all the six tanks and if they violated tire terms of the contract by modifying it, the proper course open to the Petitioner would Be to sue the Government for dam ages. if the Government is entitled to rescind or modify the order as contended by the learned Government''''.

Pleader and Sri Subrahmanyam, the Petitioner has really no grievance. I do not think that, in the precumstances of the case, it is necessary that I should quash the subsequent order by issuing a writ of certiorari.

It was contended by Sri Bhimaraju that the order passed by the Collector on 14-6-1955 was a judicial or quasi-judicial order, and that it was no open, to the Collector to review or modify the same. I am not satisfied that the order was a Judicial or quasijudicial order. The Government is the owner of the tanks, and it originally passed an: order granting a lease of six tanks to the Petitioner. For reasons which are not discernible from the records, the i Government modified its order. It cannot however, be said that the orders passed by the'' Government are judicial or quasi-Judicial In a recent case in ''Narayana v. State of Madras" Writ Petn. No. 547 of 1953 (Andhra) (C) I have discussed the four conditions laid down by Atkin hPJ. in The King'' v. Electricity Commissioner 19241 KB 171 2Q5 (D) for the issue of a writ of certiorari Slesser L. J. analysed the conditions iris ''Rex v. London County Council 19312 KB 215 243 (E) as follows:

Wherever; any body of persons (first) having legal authority (secondly) to determine questions affecting the rights of subject; and (thirdly) having the duty to act judicially, (fourthly) act in excess of their legal authority, - the sub-divisions are my own -, they are subject to the controlling Jurisdiction of the King''s Bench Division exercised in these writs.

Kania, C.J. has referred to this decision with approval in Province of Bombay Vs. Kusaldas S. Advani and Others, (P). Applying those decisions, I am not satisfied that the orders passed by the Collector are either judicial or quasi-judicial so as to attract the operation of Article 226.

In the result, the writ fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.