Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 699
1995 JLJ 682
C.K. Prasad, J.
Adarsh Matsyodyog Sahkari Sanstha Ltd. v. M.P. Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam and others
W.P. No. 848 of 1995; Decided on 2.8.1995.
Vibhuti Jha for petitioner; A.M. Mathur for respondents 1 to 3; S.L. Garg with S.S. Garg for intervenor.
Headnote:(1) Administrative Action -- policy decision of State or of the statutory corporation -- when liable to be judicially reviewed.
As a general rule a Court cannot interfere with the administrative policy of the Government or the Statutory Corporation or the Authorities which are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India but the exceptions to the aforesaid general rule have been recognized by the Courts viz. where the fundamental right of an individual is affected or some constitutional provision is violated, or where the policy is against public interest or the same is arbitrary or unreasonable, to quote a few. In such a situation judicial review of even policy decision is permissible. AIR 1981 SC 2001, 1987 JLJ 53 (SC), AIR 1989 SC 1899 and AIR 1984 SC 1543 discussed. [Para 15
(2) Words and Phrases -- word "policy" -- means the general principles by which a Government is guided in its management of public affairs. Black‘s Law Dictionary, 16th Edn. [Para 15
(3) Words and Phrases -- word "policy" -- means a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a Government. Oxford Dictionary 8th Edn. [Para 15
(4) Constitution of India --Arts. 226 and 227 -- tender for fisheries contract -- condition of experience of fishing 800 M. T. fishes in one year from one reservior out of three -- not a policy decision and liable to be judicially reviewed. [Para 15
(5) Auction -- tender for fishing -- condition of experience of fishing 800 M. T. fishes from one reservior out of three in one year -- is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 1978 SC 597 followed. [Paras 18 & 21
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- action of State or its functionary found arbitrary -- it violates provisions under. AIR 1978 SC 597 followed. [Para 21
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 19 -- citizen of India -- may move throughout the territories of India to practice any profession or carry on any occupation trade or business -- such fundamental right cannot be restricted or confined. [Para 22
¼1½ iz‘kklfud dkjZokbZ && jkT; vFkok dkuwuh fuxe dk uhfr fo"k;d fofu‘p; && dc U;kf;dr% iqfuoZyksdu fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
lk/kkj.k fu;er% U;k;ky; }kjk ljdkj vFkok dkuwuh fuxe vFkok izkf/kdj.k tks Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq- 12 ds v/khu jkT; gS] dh iz‘kklfud uhfr esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldk fdarq mi;qZDr lk/kkj.k fu;e ds vioknksa dks U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ekU;rk nh xbZ gS] mnkgj.kkFkZ] dqN viokn m)`r fd, tk ldrs gSa && tgk¡ fdlh O;fDr dk ewy vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksrk gks vFkok fdlh laoS/kkfud mica/k dk vfrØe.k gksrk gks vFkok tgk¡ uhfr yksdfgr ds fo:) gks vFkok og euekuh ;k v;qfDr;qDr gksA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa] uhfr fo"k;d fofu‘p; dk Hkh iqufoZyksdu vuqKs; gSA , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 2001] 1987 ts ,y ts 53 ¼mPpre U;k-½] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1899 rFkk , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1543 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 15
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^uhfr** && vFkZ gS og fl)kar ftuds }kjk ljdkj dk yksd dk;Zdyki ds izca/k esa ekxZn‘kZu gksrk gSA CySd d`r yk fMD‘kujh] "k"Bn‘ke laLdj.kA ¿ iSjk 15
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^^uhfr** && dk vFkZ gS ljdkj }kjk viukbZ xbZ vFkok izLrkfor dkjZokbZ vFkok dkjZokbZ dk fl)karA vkDLQMZ fMD‘kujh] v"Be laLdj.kA ¿ iSjk 15
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && eRL; m|ksx lafonk ds fy, fufonk && thu esa ls ,d tyk‘k; esa ls ,d o"kZ esa 800 eh-V- eNfy;k¡ idM+us ds vuqHko dh ‘krZ && uhfr fo"k;d fofuf‘p; ugha rFkk U;kf;dr% iqfuoZyksdu ;ksX;A ¿ iSjk 15
¼5½ uhyke && eNyh idM+us ds fy, fufonk ,d o"kZ esa rhu esa ls ,d tyk‘k; esa ls 800 eh-V- eNfy;k¡ idM+us ds vuqHko dh ‘krZ && euekuh rFkk vfHk[kaMu ;ksx; gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 597 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 18 rFkk 21
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 && jkT; vFkok mlds d`R;dkjh dh dkjZokbZ euekuh fu"df"kZr && ls mica/kksa dk vfrØe.k gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 597 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 21
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 19 && Hkkjr dk ukxfjd && fdlh Hkh o`fÙk esa O;olk; vFkok dksbZ Hkh mithfodk djus ds fy, leLr jkT;{ks=ksa esa tk ldrk gS && ,slk ewy vf/kdkj fucZaf/kr vFkok lhfer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 22
1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, has filed this Writ Petition for quashing of auction notice dated 16.6.1995 (Ann. P/I) and alternatively for declaring that Condition No. (1) of the said notice which, inter alia provides for experience of fishing 800 M. T. of fishes from one reservior in one year during preceding three years for participating in the auction for settlement of Gandhi Sagar reservior, be declared illegal.
2. By order dated 29.6.1995, this Court allowed the M.P. Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam (hereinafter referred to as the Nigam for brevity) and its functionary respondents 2 and 3 to hold auction, but restrained them from finalising it.
3. All the respondents have entered their appearance and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of, at motion hearing stage itself.
4. Respondent Nigam published a notice in the news paper for settlement of fishing rights of Gandhi Sagar reservior from the date ofsett1ement till 15.6.2000. According to the terms of the notice, the bidders were required to deposit as earnest money a sum of Rs. 66 lakhs an hour before auction to enable them to participate in the auction. The auction was to be held on 30.6.1995 at 3.00 p.m.
5. As the validity of condition No.1 of the auction notice is being assailed in the present writ petition, it is apt to reproduce the same :-
uhykeh dh ‘krsZa%& ¼1½ uhykeh esa ogh cksyhnkj Hkkx ys ldrk gS ftlds }kjk fdlh ,d tyk’k; ls foxr rhu o”kksZa esa fdlh ,d o”kZ dh vof/k esa de ls de 800 es- Vu eNyh dk vka[ksV lQyrkiwoZd fd;k x;k gksA bl gsrq cksyhnkj dks l{ke izkf/kdkjh dk izek.k&i= layXu djuk gksxkA izns’k dh eNqvk lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ds fy, bl lhek esa 10 izfr’kr dh NwV jgsxhA
It means as follows:-
In the auction only those bidders can participate who has successfully fished 800 M.T. of fishes from one reservior in one year in any of the preceding three years. From this the bidders were required to attach a certificate granted by the competent authority. The cooperative societies of the State were given relaxation upto 10% of the aforesaid limit.
6. According to this clause, condition precedent for participation in the auction was to have experience of fishing 800 M.T. of fishes from one reservior in one year in preceding three years. Validity of this condition has been questioned in the present writ petition.
7. Shri Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that fixing of experience of fishing 800 M.T. is irrational and arbitrary and the same does not achieve any object. He further submitted that not only this, the experience is confined in one year in preceding three years and that too from one reservior. In his submission this condition is 'tailor made' to suit respondent No.4 and only to make him eligible to participate in the bid. He has further drawn my attention that present reservior was currently settled with respondent No.3 and an attempt was made to extend the settlement for another five years, but the same was turned down by council of Ministers, and now in round about way, the same purpose is sought to be achieved, by laying the aforesaid arbitrary condition.
8. Although the writ petition was filed when the auction was yet to be held but it is admitted that during pendency of the writ petition, new bid was held and respondent No.3 only was found eligible. Other two cooperative societies, who appeared in the auction had experience of fishing 800 M.T. of fishing but they did not deposit earnest money of Rs. 66 lakhs and, therefore, they were not held eligible for participating in the bid. The two cooperative societies when wanted to participate in the bid were assigned work by respondent No.3 himself. This is further not disputed that final settlement has not been made in favour of respondent No.3 because of restraint order passed by this Court.
9. Shir Mathur appearing on behalf of respondent Nigam, submitted that past experience of the State Government as well s
