BERYA FISHERMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES DEPT OF FISHERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 16-10-2008 made in No. ALL: 12:2008-09 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-M; the impugned letter dated 11-11-2008 made in No. ALL: 1:08-09 passed by 2nd respondent vide annexure-Q has presented this writ petition. Further, the petitioner has sought to direct the respondents-1 and 2 to grant the lease of the tank at Hosagrahara, Hosagrahara Hobli, pursuant to the tender notification dated 7-6-2008 made in No. Hagupa:05:2008-09 vide Annexure-A in favour of the petitioner by considering the application dated 30-8-2008 vide annexure-B and etc.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, in pursuance of the notification issued by the authorized officer of the respondents dated 7-6-2008 vide Annexure-A, petitioner and third respondent have filed their applications seeking grant of lease right for harvesting fish at hosagrahara tank, Hosagrahara Taluk, K. R. Nagar, Mysore District. It is the further case of the petitioner that, respondents-1 and 2 have not considered the applications filed by the petitioner and third respondent in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification. The respondents have proceeded to conclude the proceedings granting lease in favour of third respondent only on the basis of the recommendations forwarded by the local Member of Legislative Assembly and placing reliance, specifically, on the "no Objection" communication sent by the Secretary and the President of the petitioner's society. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that, if there are two applications available, the respondents-1 and 2 have to thoroughly verify the same before granting lease. But said aspect of the matter has not been looked or verified or considered by the respondents-1 and 2. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to redress his grievance before this Court, by way of presenting this writ petition, questioning the correctness of the impugned orders and communications issued by the second respondent as referred above.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned order and the communication issued by the second respondent are liable to be set aside at threshold, since it is not in dispute that both petitioner and third respondent are eligible and when the applications filed by them are available for consideration, respondents have to consider the same as per condition No. 9 of Annexure-D the government order dated 28-1-2006 and contrary to this, respondents have proceeded and granted the leasing rights in favour of the third respondent, solely on the ground that, the Secretary and President of the petitioner's society has given "no Objection" by way of undertaking letter dated 14th October, 2008 produced at Annexure-E. It is the case of the petitioner that, the said undertaking which will defeat the rights of the society has been given by them under threat and pressure of local mla and other interested persons. After realising the mistake committed by them, immediately they have placed the matter before the Committee of the petitioner's society on 16-10-2008 and passed a resolution by majority members to withdraw the said communication and communicated the same to the respondents-1 and 2 stating that, they are withdrawing their communication issued earlier on 14-10-2008 and they are interested to pursue their claim for grant of leasing right for harvesting fish in Hosagrahara tank and the said communication has not been looked into or considered by the respondents. Further, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has vehemently submitted that, respondents have considered the case of the third respondent only on the basis of the recommendation forwarded by the local MLA and they ought to have considered the same strictly in terms and conditions of the notification. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, the impugned order passed by the second respondent granting the leasing right in favour of third respondent for a period of five years is not justifiable and the same is liable to be set aside.