MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, SURENDRA SINGH-I
Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and factual background of the society (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. court entertained a writ petition challenging the exclusion from fishing rights auction. (Para 3) |
| 3. argument on participation rights in auction (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. response and disagreement with petitioner’s claims (Para 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. petitioner argued for rights based on community needs versus established jurisdictional limitations. (Para 18) |
| 6. observations on government directive concerning fishing rights (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. court upheld executive policy as lawful and reasonable, dismissing the petitioner’s claims. (Para 26) |
| 8. legal principles around policy decision and judicial review (Para 37 , 39 , 46) |
| 9. final ruling dismissing the writ petition (Para 48) |
JUDGMENT :
M.C. Tripathi, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Kundan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 i.e. Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Tehsil Fareha, District Auraiya.
2. Present writ petition has b
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P. [(2006) 4 SCC 162
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K 1989 Supp2 SCC 364
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP
BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333]
Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors.
Dharam Dutt vs. Union of India
Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304]
M/s Laxmi Khandsari and ors vs. State of UP and others
Modern School vs. Union of India
Parvej Aktar and others Vs. Union of India and others
Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223
State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon
State of Bihar vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Shikshak Sangh
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs. RBI
State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [(2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225]
The court upheld that government policies safeguarding fishing rights for local cooperatives do not infringe constitutional rights if they are rational and promote social justice for the fishing comm....
Co-operative Society’ -It is for the Settling Authority in the Fishery Department, Government of Assam to examine the enforceability of the Notification in the context of its publication or non-publi....
The paramount consideration for settlement of a fishery is public interest, and the court emphasized the importance of transparency, fair play, and compliance with previous court orders in such matte....
The authority must comply with statutory provisions when granting fishing rights, ensuring all applications meet the Fishing Policy requirements.
The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an ....
A procedure prescribed by law to do a certain thing in a certain manner must be followed strictly and there cannot be any deviation from such procedure.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.