1. Heard Mr. Keshava Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. K. Choudhary, learned G.P. 8, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was given settlement of the Pokhar in the premises of the Government Basic School, Shree Rampur, Hayaghat Block, district Darbhanga, from 1.7.97 till 30.6.2000, which was further extended for a period of one year which ended on 30.6.2001. The petitioner submits before this Court that an account of various circumstances beyond his control, fishing could not be done fully during the aforesaid four years causing loss to the petitioner. It was for that reason that the petitioner fell in arrears with respect to the government dues. In his application before the authorities for grant of appropriate relief, he requested for permission to do one-time fishing during the current rainy season so that the petitioner may be able to clear the entire arrears of the Government. The petitioner further states in the writ petition that he has already given fish seeds in the pond in question and fishes have grown up and, therefore, if one-time fishing is allowed to him, the problems of the petitioner would be over and arrears of the State Government will also be wiped off.

3. The matter was taken up earlier on 6.8.2001 and the respondents were called upon to consider the request of the petitioner on the administrative side and also to file a counter affidavit which has been filed. Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned G.P. 8, has placed various paragraphs of this counter affidavit to state that the petitioner has been a chronic defaulter and, therefore, it is not possible for the respondent authorities to grant any remission, nor is it possible to permit him onetime fishing during the current rainy season, nor is it possible to grant him lease for a further period of one year i.e. from July 2001 to June 2002. Learned Government Pleader further invites my attention to paragraph-7 (b) of the counter affidavit which reads as follows :

"As per agreement the writ petitioner has to deposit Rs. 45,050.00 before execution of the agreement but after bid dated 04.09.1997 the writ petitioner deposited only 40,051.00 on 09.09.97 and he has to deposit Rs. 5,000.00 more before the agreement but he delayed in depositing the said amount and even there it appears that the respondent No. 4, the Head Master in collusion with the writ petitioner executed the agreement on 20.11.1997 and thereafter on 08.12.97, the writ petitioner deposited Rs. 15,000/- and as such, the writ petitioner violated the first condition and deposited the 50% of the amount in two installments, i.e. on 09.09.97 and 08.12.97, while the agreement was executed on 20.11.97." (emphasis mine)

4. Having considered the rival submissions, I do not think it possible to accede to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Law is well settled by judgments of high authority that administrative decisions are normally immune from judicial reviewability, which admits of a few exceptions and are indicated in the classic judgment of the court of appeal reported in 1947 (2) All E.L.R. 680 (Associated Provincial Picture Houses V/s. Wednesday Corporation). The following portion of the judgment illumines the position :

"The contention of the authority, in my opinion, is based on a misconception of the effect of the Act in granting this discretionary power to local authorities. The courts must always remember, first, that the act deals, not with a judicial act, but with an executive act; secondly, that the conditions which, under the exercise of that executive act, may be imposed are in terms but within the discretion of the local authority without limitations; and thirdly, that the statutes provides no appeal from the decision of the local authority. What, then, is the power of the courts? The courts can only interfere with an act of an executive authority if it be shown that the authority have contravened the law. It is for those who assert that the l