2021 Supreme(All) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.
Ravi Kumar And Another - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U P And 2 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 2259 of 2021
Decided On : 02-02-2021

Point of law: provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016 are ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution is concerned, that is completely misconceived because fishery lease is obtained not merely to earn a livelihood for survival but for profits, inasmuch as it has a commercial value. The commercial value of the fishery lease cannot be denied and the mere fact that there are more claimants than one for the lease in issue lends credence to its commercial potential. The bidding process commences only when there are more eligible claimants than one. As the bidders are all of the same class, and they bid keeping in mind the commercial interest that the proposed lease would serve, they are free to submit their bids as per their financial capacity. Hence, we are of the considered view that neither the impugned Rule nor the impugned Section(s) or the impugned condition of the advertisement violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 – Sections 189 and 190 – U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 – Rule 57 – Auction – Withdrawn – Petition of petitioner no.1 is dismissed as withdrawn – Petitioner no.2 (Thagai), for the sake of convenience, would hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner – Petitioner being member of fishermen community, pursuant to an advertisement inviting bids for settlement of fishery lease of Gaon Sabha ponds for a period of ten years, after depositing security amount of Rs.1.47 lacs, participated in an auction held – His bid, amongst four bidders, at Rs.13.40 lacs, was highest for the pond i.e. plot no.421 @ 1.137 hectare. – Vide condition no.2 of the advertisement, provisions of sections 189 and 190 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were made applicable, which, otherwise also, by virtue of sub-rule (8) of Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 were to apply. – As per those sections, the highest bidder is required to deposit one-fourth of the bid amount on the day of the auction and the balance, three-fourth, within 15 days. On failure to deposit, there are penal consequences including that of forfeiture of the security amount. – The condition no.2 of the advertisement reiterates that position. Admittedly, the petitioner could not fulfil the condition of deposit, despite grant of additional time. – Accordingly, by the impugned notice dated 19.10.2020, the petitioner was given 3 days time to make deposit of the entire amount or to face forfeiture of the security amount.

Finding of the court : In so far as the submission that the provisions of Rule 57(8) of the Rules, 2016 are ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution is concerned, that is completely misconceived because fishery lease is obtained not merely to earn a livelihood for survival but for profits, inasmuch as it has a commercial value. – The commercial value of the fishery lease cannot be denied and the mere fact that there are more claimants than one for the lease in issue lends credence to its commercial potential. – The bidding process commences only when there are more eligible claimants than one. – As the bidders are all of the same class, and they bid keeping in mind the commercial interest that the proposed lease would serve, they are free to submit their bids as per their financial capacity. – Court is of the considered view that neither the impugned Rule nor the impugned Section(s) or the impugned condition of the advertisement violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. – Challenge laid to the impugned provisions on the ground that they violate Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution is equally misconceived as they do not place unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on any business, trade or occupation. – They only put a procedure in place for acquiring a business interest from the State which by no means can be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. – Feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that the onerous condition defeats the very purpose enshrined in sub-rule (5) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2006 but as we have noticed that the impugned condition applies only when there is settlement by auction when there are more claimants than one in the same class, it cannot be said that the impugned condition defeats the object set out by sub-rule (5) of Rule 57 of the Rules, 2016.

Result :– Petition Dismissed