JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders made in 3782/PW/EE1/JE(P)-85/15-16/97 dated 08.01.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order made in No.627/PW/ID/ISD-IV/AE/2015-16 dated 29.03.2016 by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to receive the lease amount from the petitioner so as to enable him to complete lease period of three years with effect from 14.05.2015.)

The order impugned dated 29.03.2016 cancelling the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents, conferring fishing rights in favour of the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Pursuant to the public notice, the petitioner participated in the auction for exercise of fishing right in Bahour Lake situated at Bahour Commune and he was declared as a successful bidder, the petitioner remitted EMD amount of Rs.10,87,500/- and as per the agreement, the lease amount of Rs.33,99,000/- for first year, Rs.35,68,950/- for second year and Rs.37,47,398/- for third year.

3. The petitioner states that he remitted a sum of Rs.23,11,500/- as balance amount of lease for the first year. Accordingly the bid was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, parties signed the agreement and possession was handed over for exercise of fishing right by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, there was a delay in handing over the possession of the lake, enabling the petitioner to exercise the fishing right granted to him. The said delay caused financial loss to the petitioner and the applications submitted in this regard by the petitioner, during the relevant point of time was also not considered.

5. The respondents directed the petitioner to pay the lease amount. The petitioner explained the financial loss caused to him on account of the delay in handing over the lake for exercise of fishing rights, offered Rs.10 Lakhs immediately and permit him to continue the fishing in the lake. However, the offer was rejected by the 2nd respondent and they have not even received the sum of Rs.10 Lakhs offered by the petitioner. Contrarily, the second respondent cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. This Court granted an interim order of Status Quo and consequently, the petitioner was allowed to continue the fishing rights. However, the petitioner was not allowed to exercise his fishing rights after 21.01.2016. Thus, the petitioner sustained huge monetary loss, as he was not permitted to continue the fishing for the full tenure of three years.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that, once the bid was confirmed and the agreement was entered into between the parties, the successful bidder must be allowed to exercise the fishing rights for the tenure agreed between the parties and in the present case, the lease was cancelled during the middle of the tenure, thereby causing financial loss to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for refund of deposit with interest.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the said contentions by stating that the lease period was three years from the year 2014 to 2017. As per Clause 10 of the lease agreement, the petitioner has not paid the lease amount and therefore the lease agreement was cancelled by invoking the said Clause. When the lessee has not paid the lease amount as per the agreement, the respondents are empowered to cancel the lease agreement and thus there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order impugned, cancelling the agreement passed by the respondents.

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that, pursuant to the interim order granted in the present writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to exercise his f