The court emphasized that any auction is conducted in public interest to get the best possible revenue and that the action of the respondents in initiating the auction did not seem to be arbitrary or illegal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notification made in No.2079/PW/EE1/JE(P)-85/2022-23 dated 23.05.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner by granting fishing right in the Bahour Lake, Puducherry for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24 directly without resorting to the public auction to complete the lease hold right in terms of notification made in No.2935/PW/EE1/JE/(P)-85/2014-15 dated 03.11.2014 issued by the third respondent.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned fishing auction notification dated 23.05.2022 issued by the third respondent in respect of “Bahour Lake” for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition:

2. The petitioner was earlier granted fishing right for the Bahour lake for a period of three years from 2014-17. According to the petitioner, the lake was handed over to him belatedly. It is his case that he paid a sum of Rs.33,99,000/- as the lease amount for the first year as per the lease agreement. It is his contention that due to the belated handing over of the lake by the respondent, he could not carry out fishing activities and earn income for the first year of the lease. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the lease amount for the second year was also paid by him amounting to Rs.35,68,915/-. According to him, fingerlings were dropped into the lake only after the lake was handed over to him by the respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that he did not generate any income for the first year of the lease period. According to the petitioner, by order dated 21.01.2016 issued by the Government of Pondicherry, Local Administration Department, Secretariat, all the leases in respect of lakes in Pondicherry were directed to be cancelled and amounts were directed to be refunded to the respective lessees.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the Government Order dated 21.01.2016, he was evicted from the lake and therefore, the lease though was for a period of three years, the entire period could not be utilised by him. The petitioner claims that he has suffered huge losses on account of the cancellation of the lease, pursuant to G.O dated 21.01.2016 for no fault of his. He challenged the termination of the contract by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1258 of 2016. By order dated 01.04.2016 passed in W.M.P.No.10692 of 2016, an order of status quo was granted in favour of the petitioner till 06.04.2016. By virtue of the Status Quo order, the petitioner had continued to carry out fishing operations in the lake. During the pendency of the writ petition, namely W.P.No.1258 of 2016, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.35,68,915/- to the respondents towards lease amount for the second year. However, according to the petitioner, based on the oral representation in the court by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had voluntarily vacated the lake, the writ petition W.P.No.1258 of 2016 came to be dismissed on 17.11.2021 and directed the petitioner to approach the civil forum. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.68 of 2022 which according to the petitioner, has been admitted and notice has been ordered by the Division Bench of this Court.

4. Pending the said writ appeal, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned auction notification dated 23.05.2022 under which, the auction for the very same fishing lake is scheduled to be conducted on 09.06.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that only due to the belated handing over of the lake by the respondents earlier and the illegal termination of the lease, the petitioner has suffered huge losses and therefore, they cannot hold a fresh auction without permitting