AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Director of Fisheries -respondent No. 1, vide Annexure-G.
By the said order, respondent. No. 1 has cancelled the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by him thereby granting fishing rights in favour of the petitioner in respect of Arkavathi dam situated at Kanakapura Taluk. Ramanagara District, for the year 2011-12.
Based on the order dated 10.10.2011 produced at Annexure-D, petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 62,438/- towards the deposit of lease amount payable. The receipt for having paid the said amount on 12.10.2011 is produced at Annexure-D. An agreement came to be entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 13.10.2011. Copy of the same is produced at Annexure-F.
It appears that pursuant to the notification issued calling for applications for allotment of fishing rights in the Arkavathi dam, apart from the petitioner-Society, respondent No. 2-Society had also applied. But respondent No. 2, as can be seen from the contents of the order dated 10.10.2011 produced at Annexure-D, withdrew its application. It is stated in the order at Annexure-D that in the meeting of the managing committee of respondent No. 2-Society held on 04.10.2011, they had decided to withdraw the application filed seeking allotment of fishing rights. Certain reasons were also given by the Secretary of respondent No. 2-Society as to why they were withdrawing the application for allotment of fishing rights. The said letter written by the Secretary on 28.09.2011 which is referred at reference No. 3 to Annexure-D - Order is also discussed in the body of the order by respondent No. 1 before coming to the conclusion that the application filed by respondent No. 2-Society has to be ignored from consideration as the said society had withdrawn the said application. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 has considered the request made by the petitioner-Society and has passed the order granting fishing rights in favour of the petitioner.
It transpires that subsequent to the order at Annexure-D and after the agreement came to be entered into by the petitioner with respondent No. 1 by order dated 18.10.2011, the Director has cancelled the leasehold fishing rights granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that a representation had been made by the Secretary and Adhyaksha of respondent No. 2-Society stating that they Were forced and coerced to withdraw the application filed by them for fishing rights and that their case also must be considered for grant of fishing rights. Acting on this representation, the Director has cancelled the fishing rights given to the petitioner with a further direction that the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by respondent No. 2. in the representation submitted supported by the affidavits was required to be examined. It is this order passed respondent No. 1 on 18.10.2011 that is called in question, in this writ petition.
Respondent No. 2 has filed statement of objections. Counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder enclosing the copy of the resolution dated 04.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 which the petitioner claims has been obtained by making an application under the Right to Information Act.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record.
The main question that is required to be examined in this case is, as to whether respondent No. 1 could have gone back on the contract entered into With the petitioner and cancelled the same unilaterally merely on the basis of the representation given by respondent No. 2 complaining that they were coerced to give a representation withdrawing their application seeking allotment of fishing rights.
It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed in the wake of the materials on record that the case of the petitioner was considered for allotment of fishing rights and a decision was taken by respondent No. 1 allotting such rights vide order dated 10.10.2011. It is also undisputed that the petitioner has paid the requisite amount, whereupon an agreement is entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 13.10.2011. Thus, the rights of the petitioner gets crystallized and if any action has to be taken by respondent No. 1, the same can be done only in accordance with law and after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the copy of the resolution which is produced along with the rejoinder at Annexure-H. which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act, the said resolution passed by respondent No. 2-Society discloses that respondent No. 2 had resolved to withdraw the application seeking allotment of leasehold rights. The Adhyaksha of respondent No. 2-Society has signed the said resolution issued vide Annexure-H. In fact, the original resolution book which the Counsel for respondent No. 2 has made available for the perusal of the Court also contains such resolution. Counsel for respondent No. 2 however contends that the Secretary has created such a resolution and that respondent No. 2-Society has proceeded against the said Secretary by placing him under suspension.
It is prima facie clear from the materials on record that there is a resolution passed by respondent No. 2 resolving to withdraw the application filed by them before respondent No. 1. Based on that, a representation is submitted to respondent No. 1. Recording the same, respondent No. 1 has permitted respondent No. 2 to withdraw from participating in the process of allotment of fishing rights. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner is considered and the allotment is made. Once such an order is passed and a contract is entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 cannot, behind the back of the petitioner, cancel such an order on the ground that a representation was submitted by respondent No. 2 complaining that they were coerced to make such a representation seeking withdrawal of the application. If respondent No. 2 has any grievance against the Secretary or other functionaries in their society, they have to take action against them in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 cannot embark upon an enquiry into the said aspect, more so behind the back of the petitioner.
Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.