BIRENDRA KUMAR PODDAR @BIRENDRA PODDAR Vs. GHANSHYAM MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed on simple grounds that the petitioner -respondent has brought this lis without having any locus in the matter and at his instance no order could have been passed.

(2.) THE petitioner who has filed CWJC no. 10727 of 2006 is Ghanshyam Mandal, son of Late Madhusudan Mandal and Dhandkhora Prakhand Matsayajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited through its Secretary, Ghanshyam Mandal. The petitioner has claimed to have been allotted fishery rights for 2005 -06 and 2007 -08 in respect of the pond in question in plots no. 6 and 20 and on that premise on his subsisting right filed the writ petition challenging the allotment of the fishery rights made in favour of the respondent no. 7 in plots no. 6 and 20 vide order dated 27.4.2005. The petitioner has contended that all fishery rights having been transferred from the Fishery Department to the Revenue Department, Additional Collector could not have allotted the fishery rights in plots no. 6 and 20 to the respondent no. 7, who is appellant before us, in the face of existing rights in his favour. The respondent no. 7, apart from challenging the identity of the plots allotted to the petitioner also placed on record in his counter, a document emanating from the Fishery Department that the plots in question had not been transferred to Fishery Department alongwith other plots to be dealt with for the award for contract of fishery.

(3.) BE that as it may, we find from the document produced alongwith the writ petition, Annexure -4, the Parwana issued in favour of number of persons for 2005 -06 and from that we find that Parwana in respect of plots no. 6 and 20 has been issued in favour of Sugail Chatra Bhelwa Jalkar Sahyog Matsayajivi Palan Limited. Thus, the disputed plots about the fishery rights where the petitioner claimed a right, as per his own document, has not been allotted to him and he has no locus to raise any dispute in regard of the said plots allegedly allotted to the third party and challenge the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.