Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

2. On 6.7.2006 it had been indicated in the order sheet that as pure question of law regarding interpretation and application of Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2005 (99) R.D. 823, was involved, hence no counter affidavit was required.

3. The matter pertains to grant of 10 years lease for fishing rights in respect of pond comprised in plot No. 419 area 1.335 hectares situate in village Dandopur Tahsil Padrauna district Kushi Nagar. Petitioner was granted 10 years lease for fishing rights in respect of the pond in dispute as he was the highest bidder in the auction held on 23.1.2006. Petitioner’s bid was for Rs. Two lacs for ten years. Petitioner also deposited 1/4th of the said amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. It has also been stated that no person belonging to fishermen’s community or scheduled caste/scheduled tribes participated in the auction proceedings. Deputy Collector Padrauna through order dated 2.3.2006 set aside the auction on the ground that it was hit by the aforesaid Full Bench authority. It was also observed in the said order that earlier Pradhan had himself granted the lease of the pond in question to another person. As far as the said aspect is concerned, it was not at all relevant, as Pradhan had no authority to settle the lease with any one and the same having been done without any auction etc. was illegal. The said lease by Pradhan was also not subjudice before the Deputy Collector.

4. It may be mentioned that petitioner has also filed Original Suit No. 54 of 2006 in this regard.

5. In the aforesaid Full Bench authority in para 29 it has clearly been held that fisheries lease shall be settled through auction after due advertisement in news paper. It has also been held in the said authority that no renewal must be granted. The Government Order dated 17.10.1995 dealing with manner of settlement of fisheries lease and preferece for such settlement with certain castes / communities has been approved subject to these two exceptions. The said Government Order has been upheld by the Full Bench in respect of priorities to members belonging to such castes, who are traditionally carrying on the fisheries business. Para 29 of Ram Kumar’s Full Bench decision is quoted below :

“29. The settlement of fishery according to the directions under Section 126 of 1950 Act is settlement of property vested in the Gaon Sabha which should be done in a prescribed manner giving opportunity to all eligible persons to participate. The Revenue Officers, who are entrusted with duty, shall ensure proper advertisement of the date of settlement so that all persons who are eligible to participate have sufficient notice of the proposed settlement. The Government order itself contemplates “wide publicity”. The Sub-Divisional Officer himself should see that wide publicity is made. Now-a-days newspapers having wide circulation in the area is surest mode to publish a proposed settlement. As a general rule the Sub-Divisional Officer should publish in a newspaper having wide circulation of the settlement of fishing right to enable all concerned to participate. As observed above, in the event there are more than one person in one particular category of preference, the Sub-Divisional Officer is not prohibited to award the said fishing right by inviting bids by tender or auction.”

6. However, if no person belonging to the preferential category as mentioned in the Government order dated 17.10.1995 is interested in taking the lease then the pond cannot be left vacant. It will have to be given to any other person who is interested in taking the fisheries lease and is highest bidder in the open auction. According to the Full Bench even if in the preferential category more than one person are interested, then the lease shall be settled through auction.

7. Amount of Rs. 2 lacs for 10 years of