Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1968 of 2015 Petitioner :- Islamuddin Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Admin And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The report filed by the Tehsildar, Dhanaura, Amroha is taken on record.
By meas of present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 11.12.2013 whereby his fisheries lease granted on 10.09.2007 has come to be cancelled and revision filed by the petitioner against same has also been dismissed.
It transpires from the record that lease granted on 10th September, 2007 was to be continued for the period of 10 years. However, lease came to be cancelled on 11.12.2013 with direction to carry out fresh auction proceedings. Further direction was issued by the Collector Amroha for recovery of amount of Rs. 10,000/- per hectare because the huge loss has been caused to the public exchequer by granting lease on annual rent of Rs. 967/- only per year. While writ petition was entertained, no interim order was passed.
In the considered opinion of the Court, now no effective relief can be granted as the period of lease has come to be expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of the amount may be stayed and report of Sub Divisional Magistrate has been placed before this Court by learned Standing Counsel which acknowledges the deposit of Rs. 3,868/- by the petitioner. It is admitted to the parties that possession has been handed over by the petitioner in the 2013 itself and fresh fisheries lease has already taken place.
In the considered opinion of the Court if fisheries lease was granted to the petitioner at a very low premium and that resulted in the loss to the public exchequer, the persons who were involved in the helm of affairs of auction of fisheries lease, they were more responsible.
The petitioner alone cannot be saddled with liability and, therefore, to the extent it imposes a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per hectares to the record of the petitioner under the order impugned dated 11.12.2013, the order impugned is quashed. However, since it is matter of loss to the public exchequer, it is left open for the Commissioner of the division to hold enquiry against those officials who got the auction conducted and to fasten those who are found guilty in the enquiry with liability to make good the loss caused to the public exchequer.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Sanjeev