MOHAMMAD ISMAIL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The rights in fisheries, which previously vested in the zamindars, came to be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of a notification issued under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 30th June 1952. The State Government transferred some of these rights to the Land Management Committees or Gaon Panchayats of the Villages. These rights are auctioned sometimes by the Land Management Committees and sometimes by the Gaon Panchayats directly or through officers of the Government. The District Magistrate of Etawah, as the District Planning Officer, notified the sale of fishery rights in some of the rivers by means of a notification published in Hindi, a copy of which has been filed along with the original affidavit. It was notified that fishery rights in question would be sold by auction at 11 a.m. on 24th September 1956 for the period 1st October 1956 to 30th September 1957. Certain conditions of sale were mentioned in this notice, which I shall have occasion to refer to later on, The auction started at the appointed date and hour and the petitioner made the highest bid for six fishery rights and also deposited 1/4th of the security money, as required by the rules. But the rights in other fisheries were not auctioned that day and were postponed for 25th September 1956. On 25th September 1956 the petitioner made the highest bid for other six fisheries, but on this date he deposited 1/4th of the security money only for two out of six bids. No bids were accepted on 25th September 1956 and it appears that it was announced at the time of the auction that the, persons wishing to bid may file tenders for these rights by 26th of September. The 4th respondent was also present at the time that the bids were made, but his bid was not highest in respect of any one of the fisheries. He subsequently made an application to the District Magistrate increasing the bid for some of the fisheries and the District Magistrate accepted his application and the bids contained in that application, in respect of 12 fisheries. When the petitioner came to know of this acceptance, he made a representation to the District Magistrate on 28th September, 1956 protesting against the acceptance of the bids made by the 4th respondent. This representation was followed by another dated 8th October 1956. The petitioner was asked to be present on 15th October 1956 when the petitioner appeared and he was heard. Orders were passed the same day by the District Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's representation and accepting the bids made by the 4th respondent.

(3.) The present petition was filed on 15th November 1956 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Collector's orders dated 27th September 1956, accepting the bids of the 4th respondent, and that dated 15th October 1956 rejecting the petitioner's representation. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to accept the bids made by the petitioner or in the alternative to hold a fresh auction of the fisheries in question.