R K ANEJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of R. K. Aneja arises out of the following circumstances:

(2.) BY publishing an advertisement dated 26th of December. 1971. in the raiasthan Gazette and various other papers it was announced by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 that the waters of Morel bund, including the Morel river shall be auctioned for giving a contract for fishing under the provisions of the Raiasthan fisheries Act. 1953. The auction took place at Jaipur on 20th of January, 1972, and the petitioner along with respondent No. 4 who happens to be the partner of the petitioner, were the highest bidders at the auction and their bid was for Rs. 1,02,100/ -. According to the averments made in the petition, the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted by the auction committee to which the Director of animal Husbandry was a member. The period for which this contract of fishing was given by means of the said auction was very short and It was to end on the 30th of June. 1972. It is also averred that after accepting the highest bid of the petitioner the Director of Animal Husbandry confirmed the same and the petitioner deposited 25% of the amount of the total bid with the Deputy Director of Animal husbandry under Rule 6 of the Raiasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958. The petitioner's grievance is that after having accepted the bid and received 25% of the amount from the petitioner, the State Government by its order dated 11th of February, 1972, granted the Theka in favour of the Bharatpur Fishermen Co-operative society, Bharatpur (respondent No. 3) for an amount of Rs. 89,500/ -. The Director in compliance with the order of the State Government, which has been reproduced verbatim at page 6 of the writ petition, issued a licence to respondent No. 3 under rule 5 on 14th of February. 1972. It is this order of the State Government that has been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that under the rules the State Government is not competent to sanction a contract of fishing in any of the waters for which auction had taken place under the Rules. According to the petitioner, it is the Director of Animal Husbandry who is competent to sanction the highest bid of the bidder at the auction and this bid of the petitioner was confirmed by the Director. Animal Husbandry and, therefore, under Section 6 of the Act read with the Rules it is the petitioner who has the sole right of fishing in the Morel Bund. The petitioner has. therefore, praved that the order of the government dated 11th February, 1972 and licence issued in favour of respondent no. 3 for fishing in the Morel Bund for the period ending 30th June, 1972 be quashed and respondent No. 2, the Director of Animal Husbandry, may be directed by issuing an appropriate writ or order to grant a licence to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (partner of the petitioner) for fishing for the said period in Morel bund.

(3.) AN interim order was passed by this Court on 17th of February, 1972 directing respondent No. 3, the licensee, not to start fishing under the licence given to it by the Director of Animal Husbandry, but it is averred by the Bharatpur Fishermen co-operative Society (hereinafter called the Society) that before the said order was received by it, it had already started fishing under the licence, but still the director stopped the society to further carry on Its operation of fishing in the concerned waters. In such circumstances, all the parties were eager to see that the writ petition Is disposed of as early as possible so that they may exactly know their rights regarding the licence issued in favour of respondent No. 3 by the director of Animal Husbandry.