Allahabad High Court
Matashjivi Sahkari Samit Thru Pres. Uma ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary ... on 13 November, 2019
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 25181 of 2019 Petitioner :- Matashjivi Sahkari Samit Thru Pres. Uma Shankar Nishad & Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Fisheries Deptt. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rayees Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
C.M. Application No. 125537 of 2019 On due consideration the application for impleadent No. 125537 of 2019 filed on behalf of applicant is allowed. The petitioner has no objection in allowing the prayer for impleadment of proposed respondent No.7, in whose favour fishing right has been granted and therefore we allow this application. Necessary incorporation be made in the writ petition within three working days.
Order Date :- 13.11.2019 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 25181 of 2019 Petitioner :- Matashjivi Sahkari Samit Thru Pres. Uma Shankar Nishad & Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Fisheries Deptt. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rayees Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. R.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Avinash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent No.7. As per an application for amendment filed by the petitioner, his bid in the first round was not considered as some inquiry was going on, thereafter again bid was invited vide advertisement dated 26.08.2019. The petitioner again submitted his bid and learned Authority after considering the bid of the petitioner and other three prospective applicant has taken a decision that as inquiry is going on against the petitioner, therefore by reasons of Section 65 of the Cooperative Societies Act petitioner is not eligible to participate for allotment of Fishing Right and therefore his application has been rejected. The respondent No.7 was at serial No.1 and therefore fishing right was granted in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has made a statement at Bar that inquiry against the petitioner society has been completed and therefore, if petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid inquiry, he may take recourse available to him in accordance with law. The petitioner after acceptance of bid in the first round admittedly abandoned his right and participated in the second round when fresh applications were invited by issuing advertisement and therefore we cannot consider the question as to why in the first round of bid no fishing right was granted in his favaour. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, in case the authority finds that inquiry against the petitioner society has been completed then a final order if any, be passed therein. In case any amount is deposited by the petitioner, then the same will be refunded within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 13.11.2019 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)