Rajesh Kumar Niranjan vs State of U.P. and others

Sunil Ambwani and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. The petitioner was awarded a contract of fishing rights, on the down stream of Rani Laxmi, Bai Saagar, Raj Ghat Dam Reservoir, Lalitpur for the season 2009-10.

The contract was entered, for a total amount of Rs. 3,65,101/- , which was to be deposited in three equal instalments of Rs. 1,21,707/- each upto 7.11.2010. Inspire of reminders, the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount of third installment of Rs. 48,700/- of the third installment. Consequently the agreement was cancelled by order of the Executive Engineer, Raj Ghat Dam, Lalitpur on 9.5.2011, w.e.f. 7.9.2010. He has also forfeited the entire security amount of Rs. 63,000/- . The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, and to permit him to complete full period of contract.

There are no pleadings to the effect that the petitioner was stopped from fishing w.e.f. 7.9.2010, and thus we presume that the petitioner has carried out the fishing upto 9.5.2011, when the order was issued, leaving a balance of about more than one month.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Government Order dated 8.3.2000, the agreement could have been cancelled only by the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, and not by the Executive Engineer of the Raj Ghat Dam, Lalitpur.

The writ petition has been filed on 19.8.2011, almost two months after the period of contract has come to an end. In the circumstances, even if the petitioner''s claim is accepted, he may be entitled only for damages, which cannot be adjudicated and computed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. this Court cannot extend the period of contract on the ground that the defaulted amount of last installment could be adjusted from security. The petitioner did not approach the Court earlier, for seeking such relief.

The impugned order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Raj Ghat Bhand Evam Paryavaran Evam Bhu-Arjan Prakhand, Raj Ghat, does not show any ground, as well as failure of the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of third installment of Rs. 48,600/- , for cancelling the contract in terms of condition No. 4 (a) of the agreement. He has given no reasons, to forfeit the entire amount of security i.e., Rs. 63,500/- , without adjusting third installment. He has given no special reason, for forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 63,500/- , which was more than last installment of Rs. 48,700/- , to be paid by the petitioner. The order shows that the petitioner was required to stop the fishing, immediately i.e. from 9.5.2011.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition, providing that balance amount of security Rs. 14,800/- (after adjusting Rs. 48,700/- from the total security amount of Rs. 63,500) shall be returned to the petitioner, and in case the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he may file a suit for the damages. If such a suit is filed, the Trial Court will first consider to send the matter to alternative mode of redressal of dispute, provided u/s 89, CPC.