Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, JJ.
The Panam Jalasay Hareda Matsya Udhyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.15671 of 2022
Decided on : 11-10-2022
Fishing Lease - Cooperative Societies - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 - 25.02.2004 - The court discussed the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 canceling the fishing lease and inviting fresh tender for Panam Reservoir. The lease policy for inland water reservoir fishering dated 25.02.2004 was referenced, along with the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The court highlighted the petitioners' contention of providing employment to local tribal and the requirement to award the fishing rights to tribal fishery society at upset price as per the lease policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Cooperative Societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, sought to quash the impugned order canceling the fishing lease and inviting fresh tender for Panam Reservoir. They contended that the lease was awarded in line with the policy to benefit local tribal members and that they faced financial stringency due to the pandemic, leading to non-payment of lease amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners suppressed true facts and suggested falsehood before the court, leading to an interim order being obtained. It imposed costs on the petitioners and dismissed the petition filed by the second petitioner as the cause of action did not survive due to the fresh tender process and the award of the lease to the first petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of the fishing lease, the petitioners' contention of providing employment to local tribal, non-payment of lease amount due to financial stringency, and the subsequent award of the lease to the first petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi and imposed costs on them. It also dismissed the petition filed by the second petitioner as the cause of action did not survive due to the subsequent developments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition filed by the second petitioner and reserved liberty to challenge the award of tender in favor of the first petitioner.
ORDER :
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. The Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
(C) You Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-B) inviting fresh tender for Panam Reservoir with all further and consequential action and be pleased to issue writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from awarding fishing contract to any third party during the lease period of fishing contract awarded to the petitioners by office order dated 07.06.2021."
2. The grievance of the petitioners as urged and canvassed in the petition is to the effect that they are Cooperative Societies both registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and contending inter alia that order dated 04.06.2022 canceling the contract and inviting fresh tender as per communication dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-B) on the ground that petitioners were awarded the contract for fishing rights for a period of five years, commencing from 01.08.2020 to 31.05.2025 by office order dated 07.06.2021 and said order was sought to be canceled by the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 is erroneous. Contending inter alia that petitioners are engaged in activity of providing employment to local tribal of Panchmahal by engaging them in fishing work and the members of the petitioners' society belong to Schedule Tribe and other Backward Classes and for their benefit, the Cooperative Societies have been established and in tune with the extant policy the contract was awarded. It is further pleaded that petitioners were granted contract for fishing in 2011 for a period of 10 years and on completion of said period of 10 years e-tender notice was issued in the year 2021. It is also contended that Panam Reservoir, where the fishing rights were given to the petitioners, is situated in a tribal area and as per the lease policy for inland water reservoir fishering dated 25.02.2004, it is required to be awarded to tribal fishery society at upset price. Hence, petitioners are said to have submitted the tender jointly and awarded the tender for upset price of 6,14,480/- for a period of five years, commencing from 01.08.2020 to 31.05.2025 to be renewed for a further period of five years on respondents finding that the contract having been satisfactorily executed by the petitioners. On account of certain amounts not having been paid as agreed under the tender conditions, the impugned action was initiated against the petitioners and undisputedly for a period of two years (approximately) due to prevalent Pandemic the rights of the fishing obtained by the petitioners could not be executed. Hence, petitioners contended that they could not make payment of lease amount as agreed under the contract on the ground of financial stringency and there has been delay. However, respondents by the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 having cancelled the contract or terminated, had invited fresh Bids which has been impugned in the present writ petition. Contending inter alia that representations submitted by the petitioners have not been considered and despite request made to continue the contract and allow the petitioners to carry out the fishing activity, same has not been accepted and on account of there being no response to the representations submitted by the petitioners, the online notice issued, calling for tender is liable to be qua
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to present true facts before the court and the consequences of suppressing true facts and suggesting falsehood.
The court's decision was based on the principle that disputed questions of fact would not be entertained when the concerned party did not come forward to dispute the resolution.
The court emphasized that in contractual disputes, the extraordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
