VIJAY CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Petitioner lessee for a period of three years, as pisciculturist (since 1993 to 1996) for rearing fish under Mallikpur Branch Canal, was entitled to the benefit of principle of natural justice and entitled to the benefit of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation under the circumstances of the instant case are the short questions for determination in the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking the relief to quash the order dated the 5th of February, 1994 (Annexure 4) canceling the lease without any opportunity of show cause/hearing.

(2.) The essential facts are these. The Petitioner, being highest bidder of an auction sale, obtained a lease and after complying with all the formalities in pursuance of letter No. 264/Goraul dated the 7th of August, 1993 issued under the signature of the S.D.O., Tirhut Canal Sub-division No. 1, Goraul, deposited the entire required auction sale and other amounts and started fishing after having invested a handsome amount. Approval of the higher officials including the Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division was also obtained. Earlier he had received a certificate of being the highest bidder vide Annexure 2 and was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,200/- and Rs. 40,701/-. After the receipt was obtained and the amount was deposited, as required, the Petitioner started fishing operation in the ditches in question. The Petitioner also made purchases for a sum of Rs. 27,130/- on 15.10.1993, Rs. 37,080/- on 18.10.93 and Rs. 35,460/- on 22.10.1993 for developing the ditches settled in his favour, as contained in Annexure 3 to this petition. Investment was made particularly for purchase of pisci-fauna, fish-seeds. Additional huge amount for investment by way of labour cost etc. was also made by the Petitioner.

(3.) It is needless to say that it takes about six months for pisci-fauna to grow. By the time the Petitioner was expecting the outcome after investment of a huge amount, he learnt that the settlement made in his favour on the basis of public auction held on 3.9.1993, has been cancelled without any notice for representation and without affording any opportunity for hearing, when in fact the Petitioner was legitimately expecting that in case his lease per chance is sought to be cancelled even after having complied with all the formalities and also being highest bidder, having invested a handsome amount, he would be afforded an opportunity of hearing. But nothing was done and by the impugned order dated 5.2.1994 (Annexure 4) the Petitioner's lease for three years was cancelled.