AJAY SONKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the settlement of fishing rights over Yamuna River part I made in favour of respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 1,86,000 by the respondents 1,2 & 3 vide order dated 21.6.1996 for the year 1996-97 i.e., for the period commencing 1.7.1996 and ending on 30.6.1997.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri Murlidhar in his extensive arguments, raised all possible grounds for declaring the said settlement a nullity, but an objection was raised that at the time of alleged settlement neither the petitioner offered a bid nor submitted a tender rsther he emerged after the settlement of fishing rights was made in favour of respondent No. 4, thus the pelitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same.

(3.) No doubt, if the petitioner was not party to the proceedings for the said settlement, he cannot claim any right for himself, but if the settlement is arrived at with patent illegalities affecting augmentation of public revenue, the petition challenging the same is maintainable even on behalf of third party. In this context it is needless to say that the locus standi has been given almost go by in India. Therefore, this petition will be heard and decided on merits.