HARIOM Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State respondents, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Sri Vijai Bhan Singh, holding brief of Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Moradabad Division, Moradabad, respondent no.2 in Revision No. 05/12-13 (Shishu Pal Singh and others Vs. Hari Om and others) by which the revision filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have been allowed and the petitioner's fishery lease dated 26.9.2012 has been cancelled with the direction to initiate proceedings for grant of fresh lease.

(3.) Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned submitted that the order is without jurisdiction as against the order granting the fishery lease or lease a revision would not be maintainable. In his submission as the lease was granted under the provisions of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 the appropriate remedy for the respondent was to seek its cancellation by way of filing an application before the Collector concerned but instead of doing so he availed the remedy of revision. He has drawn attention of the Court to a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (ILR (Alld) 2006 3 71) , wherein its has been observed that against an order granting lease or lease appropriate remedy is to file an application for cancellation of lease before the Collector.