SRI. GALIB SHERIFF vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition has been filed by Sri.Galib Sharief s/o.Gafur Shereif aggrieved by the action by the respondent Bethamangala Grama Panchayath

by issuing a public notice dated 3.11.2017 inviting Tenders for fishing rights of Goshina Kere Lake.

The petitioner has submitted before the Court that the said Grama Panchayath vide Resolution dated 26.9.2017 had already resolved to extend

the period of fishery rights given to the petitioner for a further period of two years from the date of said Resolution dated 26.9.2017 and thereupon

the petitioner had spent considerable amount on developing the said lake by sowing fishing seeds, purchase of nets etc. and around a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- had been invested in that, but thereafter suddenly as the respondent-Grama Panchayath, vide impugned communication-Annexure-

A dated 03.11.2017 again decided to hold a meeting for holding public auction for such fishing rights and thus threatened with the revocation of its

own contract, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

This Court issued notices to the respondents on 10.11.2017 and in pursuance of the said notices, respondent No.4 - Grama Panchayath has

filed its Statement of Objections before this Court and the Grama Panchayath has stated in paragraph 6 of its statement of objections admitting the

claim of the petitioner that after issuance of the permission letter to the petitioner by respondent No.4 - Grama Panchayath, the petitioner has

secured the lake by installing nets and also sowing seeds but the higher authorities directed respondent No.4 to re-auction the fishing rights granted

in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the respondent again issued notice on 03.11.2017 to convene the meeting for re-auctioning of the rights

in said Goshina Kere lake purportedly at the direction of higher authorities, but however, no such direction of the higher authority has been placed

on record along with the Statement of Objections.

Sri.Prakash M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Grama Panchayath submitted before the Court on the complaints made by the

members of the public and the directions of the higher authorities, without being specified who, the respondent - Grama Panchayath took the

decision to again convene the said meeting for the purpose of re-auction of such fishing rights in the said lake.

The learned counsel appearing for the Chief Executive Officer of the Kolar Zilla Panchayath, Mr.Somayaji, however submitted that though he

has not filed any Statement of Objections yet, he submitted that the area in question was allocated to the Grama Panchayath and in the Guidelines

in this regard under the Government Order dated 21.02.2014 it is indicated therein that the Grama Panchayath shall themselves develop fisheries in

the tanks within the limits through local fishermen or through local fisheries cooperative societies. Otherwise such rights will be given through public

auction and the successful bidders may obtain training and acquire technical knowledge of fishing and fish culture and avail facilities provided by the

Government.

Mr.Rahul P and Mr.Rahul S.Reddy, Advocates, has also filed an application - I.A.2/2018 on behalf of the applicants Mr.B.M.Ramachandra

and Mr.Suresh representing the cause of public, seeking an impleadment in the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsels.

In the considered opinion of this Court the respondent - Grama Panchayath cannot be allowed to go back on its Resolution and Contract

entered into between the petitioner under the said Resolution Annexure-D dated 26.9.2017 by which it granted a further period of two years of

fishing rights to the present petitioner. The petitioner admittedly as per the own saying of the Grama Panchayath itself had invested huge amount

after grant of such permission and had developed the said area for the purpose of fishing for the next period of two years. Thus, the principles of

promissory estoppel would apply and Public Body cannot be allowed to breach its contract with impugnity.

The respondent No.3 Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath has no jurisdiction to interfere with the said concluded contract and the

Resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath. Any such order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is not been placed on record of the Court.

The sanctity of contracts by public bodies like Grama Panchayath has to be maintained and any other authority of the State Government like the

Chief Executive Officer, cannot interfere with such process, once a concluded contract has come into being. The Guidelines issued by the State

Government as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Mr.Somayaji, the Chief Executive Officer, are only directory in nature and

they can undo the concluded contract in any manner. If concluded contracts were allowed to be tinkered with in such whimsical manner, the very

functioning of the public body like the Grama Panchayath would become difficult. If a public auction in this regard was to be held as per the

Guidelines, the same could have been held before passing of the Resolution like the one passed by the Grama Panchayath, in the present case.

The application-I.A.No.1/18 filed for impleadment by the representative of the public is also misconceived and is liable to be rejected as they

are neither necessary nor proper parties in the lis involved in the case.

The writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned notice issued by the respondent - Grama

Panchayath for convening the fresh meeting for the purpose of holding of fresh auction for the fishing rights in the said Goshinakere lake is quashed.

However after the said period of two years of the contract period is over, the respondent - Grama Panchayath is free to proceed further in

accordance with law. No Costs.

I.A.2/18 filed for vacating stay is also disposed of accordingly.