( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri R. V. Singh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

( 2 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made to it by a learned single Judge vide its referring order dated 25th September, 2001 passed in this writ petition. Learned single Judge found conflict in judgment of Division Benches which necessitated the reference. The following eight questions have been referred to this Full Bench:-

(i)Whether judicial propriety demands that if a Bench of High Court is unable to agree with the decision already rendered by earlier Division Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the question of disagreement should be referred to a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court, 1951?

(ii)Whether the decisions rendered in former two Division Benches in the case of Ajai Shanker (supra), which were brought to the notice of learned Judges constituting Division Bench in case of Panchoo (supra), the latter Division Bench instead of disagreement with ratio decidendi of two former Division Benches, it ought to have referred the same to a larger Bench of this Court?

(iii)Whether Article 14 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution postulate a reasonable classification to ameliorate the economic condition of weaker section of society of fishermen community enumerated under Paragraph 62 (2) (kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual and also for elimination of middlemen to save the said weaker section of society from exploitation as the Directive Principles embodied the ideal of socio economic justice as assured in the preamble of the Constitution and the Courts are to adopt the principle of harmonious interpretation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution so as to give effect to the Fundamental rights as well as Directive Principles of State Policy?

(iv)Whether in view of the State List of Seventh Schedule Item No. 21 empowers State Legislature to enact on the subject of fisheries, placing U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, with Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and the mandatory provisions enshrined under Article 243-G read with Item No. 5 of Eleventh Schedule which includes settlement of fisheries of the ponds and tanks vested in Gaon Sabha with powers, authority and responsibility of Panchayat, the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and the implementation of scheme for economic development and social justice as entrusted to them under Paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 126 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder are sacrosanct being policy of affirmative action of the State Government giving Distributive justice to the weaker section of society and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation?

(v)Whether the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in case of Man Singh (supra) conferring jurisdiction upon Sub Divisional Officer and Collector both for cancellation of Patta of fishery right making the order of Collector revisable requires reconsideration in view of sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 122-C of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Dhulabhai (supra)?

(vi)Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred to cancel the fisheries rights granted under paragraph 60 (2) (Kha) of Gaon Sabha Manual and the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Todi (supra) requires reconsideration in view of decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in case of Similesh Kumar (supra) ?

(vii)Whether rights of appeals and revisions are creation of statute and once statutory provisions indicate the manner of settlement of dispute, no other authority including Civil Court has jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the matter covered thereby?

(viii)Whether leases of rearing of fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document