GORAKHNATH Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted a lease in respect of a tank fishery for a period of ten years since 12th of August 1987. The petitioner had applied for renewal of the lease for another period by an application dated 15th of February, 1997. The said prayer for renewal has since been rejected by a letter dated 15th May, 1997. This has since been challenged by means of this petition. The ground on which it has been cancelled appears to be justified, inasmuch as there are many other persons who are agreeable to bid for the lease. Therefore, the lease should be granted in an open auction and all the persons who are ready to offer bid may be included in the list and may be processed for auction.

(2.) WE do not find any reason to interfere with the said order inasmuch as the order appears to be in consonance with the law, practice and procedure and in consonance the principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which envisages equal opportunity in the matter of grant of lease to every person who are ready to bid for auction. The petitioner can not claim monopoly because he had been granted lease once earlier. He cannot expect largesse to be doled out to him alone, without opening up the opportunity to other persons to compete, a principle reiterated by the courts consistently. That part one can not have any right to renewal of a lease unless provided in any Statute or in a contract. No case for renewal either based on Statute nor contract has been made out. Therefore, the right sought to be claimed is not a legal right. It is only legal rights that can be enforced by invoking writ jurisdiction which is now a settled principle of law. For all the reasons, given above, this petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.