(1.) In this case on 1.12.2009, an order was passed, which is quoted below :
(2.) Today affidavit of Swaminath Pathak, Deputy Collector, Saidpur, District Ghazipur has been filed. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the pond is comprised in Plot No. 477, area 1.495 hectares and Plot No. 1174/93, area 0.072 hectares total area 1.567 hectares. In Para-4 of the affidavit it has been stated that due to refusal of the first three bidders to take the lease, lease remained in abeyance for more than one and a half year and thereafter opinion of D.G.C. was obtained. Absolutely no explanation of so much delay has been given. Thereafter, it is mentioned that opinion was received on 19.11.2007 and in accordance with the said opinion, petitioner was offered the lease and he deposited the amount on 19.1.2009. This further delay of more than a year is also unexplained. In Para-6 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that people of the village raised objection and it was found that petitioner was very rich, hence not entitled for grant of fisheries lease by virtue of G.O. dated 17.10.1995. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.9.2009 was passed for refund of the amount to the petitioner. In the said G.O., there is no bar that lease cannot be granted to a rich person. Moreover, it has not been stated that what is the extent of richness of the petitioner. If except one person, no one is ready to take the lease, then the lease has to be granted to that person. Richness is still not a crime in India. It has been stated in the said affidavit (Para-7) that deponent took charge on 17.2.2009. Accordingly, for the wastage of time and money till then previous S. D. O. is responsible. If due to petty village rivalries, ponds are kept vacant and not let out for fisheries purposes, it is a loss of the village itself. Every person having business is bound to have some rivalries.
(3.) Collector through learned Standing Counsel ought to have disclosed the name of the previous Deputy Collector, which has not been done.