B P F CO OP SOCY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bhagabati Primary Fishermen's Co-operative Society represented by its Secretary calls in question in this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the letter addressed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Pipili Irrigation Sub-division, to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Puri, as per Annexure-7, containing a direction to conduct public auction of the Bhargabi Syphone for fishing for the year 1986-87, as being violative of the principles for settlement of fisheries contained in Annexure-1 issued by the Revenue Department for settlement of fishery Sairat sources with the eligible co-operative societies on consideration amounts equivalent to the averages of lease values fetched during the last three years plus five per cent of the same read with instructions contained in letter No. R-13/76-14757 dt. the 23rd April, 1976 (Annexure-2) issued by the State Government in the Irrigation and Power Department to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and other authorities that such authorities may adopt Annexure-I. It has been contended by Mr. Pal that the petitioner is entitled to have the fishery right for the year 1986-87 settled with it without public auction. He has also contended that in view of the instructions contained in Annexures-1 and 2, the State Government and its authorities are estopped from taking a different stand and putting the Sairat source to public auction.

(2.) According to the opposite parties, as per para. 6.4.5. of the Orissa Public Works Department Code, Volume-I, notice was issued in accordance with the instructions issued by the higher authorities fixing the auction in respect of the Sairat in question on June 6, 1986. It has been stated in the counter affidavit of the opposite parties that from the year 1970 onwards, the Bhargabi Escape is being put to public auction and leased out annually and while during the preceding three years, the bid amounts at the auctions were Rs. 10,128.00, Rs. 6,790.00 and Rs. 9,270.30 respectively, the bid amount for the current year 1986-87 is Rs. 50,000/- offered by the opposite party No. 6.

(3.) Coming to the question of promissory estoppel, reference has been made by Mr. Pal to the case reported in AIR 1986 SC 806 Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and AIR 1986 Ori 163, Sri Jagannath Roller Flour Mill v. State of Orissa. The principles relating to the applicability of this doctrine have been enunciated in the first-mentioned case. In the instant case, no promise had been made by the State or any authority to the petitioner-society for settlement of the fishery right with it. It is not a case where the fishery right has been settled with the, petitioner. It follows that the petitioner has not acted on the promise made by the opposite parties and has not changed its position to its prejudice or disadvantage. In the case reported in AIR 1986 Ori 163 (supra), referred to and relied on by Mr. Pal for the petitioner, certain exemptions with regard to sales tax and octroi duties allowed for a period had been withdrawn by the State. In such circumstances, this Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply to the facts of that case. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard must fail.