AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The writ petition had been filed challenging the auction notice, dated 28.9.2010, issued by the second respondent in
Na. Ka. No. 955/A/2010, relating to the grant of lease for fishing rights, in Periyakulam Periya Kanmoi, in Then District.
The petitioner has stated that he was the successful bidder in the public auction conducted by the second respondent, on 28.12.2007, pursuant
to the auction notification, dated 14.9.2007, for the grant of lease for fishing in Periyakulam Periya Kanmoi, for a period of three years, from June,
2007 to June, 2010. Further, the order granting the lease had been issued in favour of the petitioner only on 25.1.2008. Only thereafter, the
petitioner could let in fish seedlings in the Kanmoi to harvest them at a later point of time. However, during the years 2008 to 2010, the Kanmoi
did not fill up due to the failure of the monsoon. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not enjoy the fishing rights in the Kanmoi.
While so, the second respondent had issued a notice, on 21.6.2010, stating that the period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner had come
to an end and that he would not be entitled to continue the activity of fishing in the Kanmoi, beyond the month of July, 2010. Thereafter, the
petitioner had sent a detailed representation to the second respondent, on 5.8.2010, requesting for extension of lease, for a further period of three
years, from the year, 2010, on payment of an additional amount of 10% more than the lease amount paid by the petitioner for the earlier lease
period.
Since, the representation of the petitioner, dated 5.8.2010, had not been disposed of by the second respondent, taking into account the relevant
government orders, he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P. No. 12603 of 2010, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the second
respondent to consider the representation, dated 5.8.2010, and pass appropriate orders thereon. This Court, by its order, dated 7.10.2010, had
directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 5.8.2010, within a period of eight weeks. However, the
second respondent, instead of disposing of the representation of the petitioner, dated 5.8.2010, as directed by this Court, had issued an auction
notice, dated 28.9.2010, stating that the auction would be conducted, on 14.10.2010, in respect of the fishing rights in Periyakulam Periya
Kanmoi, for a period of three years, from June, 2010 to June, 2013. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent should conduct the auction for granting of
fishing rights in respect of Periyakulam Periya Kanmoi, as the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is due to expire only in the month of June,
2011. He had also submitted that the respondents ought to have extended the period of lease for a further period, till the month of June, 2011, as
the order granting the lease in favour of the petitioner had been passed, only on 25.1.2008, even though the lease period had commenced from the
month of June, 2007. It had also been submitted that the second respondent had failed to see that only during the month of June of each year the
fish seedlings could be reared in the Kanmoi in question. Further, it is inappropriate for the second respondent to conduct the auction, without
disposing of the representation, dated 5.8.2010, as directed by this Court, by its order, made in W.P. No. 12603 of 2010.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, made in K. Subbiah
Pandian and Ors. v. The Assistant Director of Panchayat 2009 Writ L.R. 984, to strengthen his claim that the lease already granted in favour of the
petitioner had to be extended upto the month of June, 2011, as the order granting the said lease had been passed by the second respondent, only
on 25.1.2008, even though the lease period had commenced from the month of June, 2007.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had participated in the auction held on
28.12.2007, pursuant to the auction notification, dated 14.9.2007. It had been clearly mentioned that the lease period would be for a period of
three years from June, 2007 to June, 2010. There is no government order applicable to the present case giving the power to the respondents to
extend the period of lease, for a further period of three years, on payment of an additional 10% more than the amount paid by the lessee for the
past lease period. When the petitioner had participated in the said auction, without any protest, it is not open to him to turn back and to claim that
the respondents should extend the lease, upto the month of June, 2011.
It has also been stated that in the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, it has been made clear that the
period of lease would be only for a period of three years, from June, 2007 to June, 2010. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to claim, as a
matter of right, the extension of lease in his favour, for a further period of three years. It has also been stated that the petitioner, by his
representation, dated 5.8.2010, had only requested for the grant of lease in his favour, for a further period of three years, from June, 2010 to June,
2013, on his payment of an additional sum of 10% more than the lease amount paid by him during the previous lease period. The request made by
the petitioner cannot be granted as there is no government order, rule or regulation, authorising the respondents to extend the period of lease, as
prayed for by the petitioner.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ
petition. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that the period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner for fishing in the
Periyakulam Periya Kanmoi was for the period of three years, from June, 2007 to June, 2010. It cannot be said that the period of lease had
commenced, only on 25.1.2008. It is clearly stated in the lease agreement signed by the petitioner that the lease period is from June, 2007 to June,
2010. While so it is not open to the petitioner to claim that the period of lease would commence, only from 25.1.2008, which is the date of the
order granting the lease in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner has not been in a position to show the relevant government orders to substantiate his claim that he would be entitled for the grant
of lease in his favour, for fishing in Periyakulam Periya Kanmoi, for a further period of three years, on payment of 10% more than the lease amount
paid by the petitioner during the earlier lease period. It is not open to the petitioner to demand the grant of lease in his favour, for a further period
of three years, on the basis that he could not rear and harvest fishes during his earlier lease period, due to the failure of monsoon. Such reasons
stated by the petitioner would not be sufficient to persuade this Court to direct the respondents to grant the lease, in favour of the petitioner, for a
further period of three years, as prayed for by him. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the facts and circumstances of the present
case are similar to those, which had arisen for the consideration of the Division Bench of this Court, in the decision cited supra. As such the writ
petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.