Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In the first writ petition, which was connected with writ petitions No. 23933, 23994, 24800, 27918 and 28676, all of 2001, a detailed order was passed on 25.9.2001 referring eight questions to Full Bench. Thereafter, matter was heard by Full Bench (However W.P. No. 24800 of 2001 had meanwhile been dismissed on 8.4.2005 by a Single Judge in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner). The questions were answered on 29.9.2005. The Full Bench judgment is reported in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2005(99) RD 823 : 2005(4) ESC 2617 (All)(FB). In other writ petitions, which are being decided through this judgment, orders for connecting the same with writ petition of Ram Kumar were passed. The Full Bench after giving its decision on the points, which were referred, sent the writ petitions to the Single Judge for decision in accordance with the views expressed by it. Accordingly, these writ petitions have been listed today.

2. Heard learned counsel for some of the petitioners, Sri Zafar M. Naiyer, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri V.K. Chandel and Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, for the State and its authorities. Some of the learned counsel, who are appearing for private respondents in some of the writ petitions, have also been heard.

3. The matter in dispute in these writ petitions relates to grant of fisheries lease normally for ten years in respect of ponds. In some cases, question of renewal of lease after expiry of the initial period is also involved. The Full Bench categorically held in Para-29 that lease should be granted after appropriate advertisement of the date of settlement.

4. The other important point decided by the Full Bench is that renewal of lease is utterly illegal. The third important thing which the Full Bench decided is that preference to cooperative societies of fishermen or those persons belonging to such castes, which are traditionally carrying the profession of fisheries as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 should be followed.

5. In the judgment reported in Satya Vrat Singh v. State, 2006 (5) ALJ 549 : 2006(6) ADJ 346, I summarised the effect of the Full Bench. Wrongly interpreting the said Full Bench, Government had issued an order on 23.2.2006 mentioning that the Full Bench had held that State Government had got a right to settle the fisheries lease on the basis of priorities instead of public auction. I therefore directed that the said Government Order shall not be given effect to. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of Satya Vrat Singh authority are quoted below :

“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 newspaper. 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 casts, 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 gener