JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, dated 22.11.2002 by which the approval as was given for fisheries rights in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and disapproval in respect to the claim of fisheries rights in favour of the opposite party was also maintained.
3. The claim of the petitioner relates to grant of the lease for fishing rights for a period of ten years. It is claimed that initially resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner which was recommended also by the Tehsildar on 12.9.2001 that petitioner be given the lease for fishing purpose in the pond in question at a premium of Rs. 1,020 per annum. Recommendation/claim relates to two ponds, i.e., Pond No. 202 Gha (238 air) and 275 (530 air). The recommendation in favour of the petitioner was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 16.9.2001 against which the respondent No. 4 preferred revision in which the impugned order dated 22.11.2002 by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, came to be passed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel, there appears to be no dispute about the fact that the lease for fishing rights was not allowed in favour of the petitioner by getting wide publicity, through a public auction, rather it is claimed that on account of some resolution of the, Gaon Panchayat, recommendation was made for selling the ponds at the premium of Rs. 1,020 per annum. Learned Commissioner has taken the view that lease for fishing rights in view of the decisions of this Court is to be granted by the public auction and, therefore, a direction was given that settlement is to be made accordingly. The view as has been taken by the authority below appears to be in consonance with the decision given by this Court, reference of which can be given at this stage. In Khilodhar v. A.D.M. (R. A., Allahabad), 1987 (1) AWC 385 : 1987 ALJ 590, a Division Bench of this Court with reference to the grant of fisheries rights held as follows :
"when the Statute prescribe particular procedure for disposing of certain rights the authorities should not be permitted to circumvent that procedure. The disposal of any right by public auction is a wholesome procedure. It is advisable to follow that procedure even if it has not been specifically prescribed but when prescribed it must be faithfully followed."
5. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 988, it was observed that Government entering into contracts or issuing quotas is expected not to act like a private individual but should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms.
6. Thus, it is well-settled by catena of decisions that while entering into contracts or granting other form of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet-will and it cannot choose to deal with any person as it pleases. An open auction guarantees fairness as everyone gets a chance to participate and the Government gets the best price for its goods. In another decision given by our own Court in A. S. Advertising Company. Railway Road, Meerut and Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Meerut and Anr., 2001 (1) AWC 28 : 2001 (1) UPLBEC 125, this Court has taken the view that for settling any contract, publication in two newspapers of wide circulation is required. The same view has been reiterated by a Division Bench in another decision given in the case of Karan Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2001 (1) AWC 224 : 2001 (1) UPLBEC 128.
7. Besides the pronouncement of our own Court, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court, provisions as contained in Rule 115 (S) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, will also be useful to be quoted here :
"115 (S) (1)--No lease or licence in respect of any property vested in the Gaon Sabha shall be made for a period exceeding one year except with the specific permission of the Government in the Revenue Department and that no lease or licence shall be made in favour of a person except by public auction held in accordance with the procedure given below :
(i) The auction shall be well advertised in the circle of the Gaon Sabha by beat of drums giving descriptions of the property to be auctioned and shall be open to the public :
Provided that no one who has any dues of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti outstanding against him shall be allowed to participate in the auction.
.....
The proceedings of the auction shall be duly noted in a book kept for this purpose :
Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to :
(i) cases of allotment of agricultural land and abadi sites covered by Rules 173 to 177 and Rules 155L to 115R, respectively ; and
(ii) cases in which the State Government issues direction under Section 126 of the Act read with Rules 115A and 115B ;
Provided further that in the case of perennial tanks of three or more acres in area, the Land Management Committee may, with the previous permission of the Assistant Collector-in-Charge of the sub-division concerned, grant a lease for a period not exceeding seven years in favour of one or more than one fisherman residing within the circle of the Gaon Sabha or in favour of a cooperative society of such fishermen registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (Act No. 2 of 1912) and registered place whereof situate within such circle."
8. In this connection, a recent Government order issued on 8.3.2000 (Sankhya-765/57-Matsya-2000-5 (69) 81 Matsya Utpadan Anubhag) is also useful to be referred. By the aforesaid Government order also, fresh policy for settling the rights in the pond have been specified which also clearly speaks about settlement through public auction under the supervision of a committee so constituted for that purpose. By the aforesaid Government order, all the previous Government orders including the Government order dated 21.6.1995 have been superseded and thus the decision as has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the submission that the matter is required to be deferred, is not to be accepted.
9. On the facts and circumstances, it is clear that petitioner claims settlement of fisheries rights in respect to two ponds for a nominal amount which is admittedly without any publicity, advertisement, without a public auction and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the view as has been taken by the authority below. In view of the pronouncement by the Apex Court referred above, it can be safely said that "an open auction guarantees fairness as everyone gets a chance to participate and the Government gets the best price for its goods". In view of aforesaid, this Court feels that it is not a fit case for interference as no prejudice can be said to have occasioned to the petitioner, by the impugned decision.
10. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed at admission stage.