1.wp363.2024jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2024 Navsanjivani Dharangrast Sushikshit Berojgar Matsyavyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Dagadparwa, Ta. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola. R.No. 379 through its Secretary Shri. Dattatraya Digambar Mahalle, ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, office at Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, office at Taraporewala Aquarium, Mumbai. ... Respondents 3. Regional Deputy Commissioner, Fisheries, Amravati, Tahsil & District Amaravati. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries, Akola, Tahsil & District Akola. 5. Sk. Salim Sk. Washir, aged about 40 years, occupation: Fisheries, r/o Tajan Peth, Subhash Road, Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondents/State. Mr. Tejas S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.5/caveator. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31.08.2026 PAGE 1 OF 9 2026:BHC-NAG:11922 1.wp363.2024jud.odt JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (3) The present petition challenges order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision No.01/2022 and order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries in Appeal No.10/2021. It further prays for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to continue lease period in accordance with the allotment order dated 19.07.2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries, Akola. The facts as can be seen from the memo of petition are as under : (4) The petitioner being a society duly registered for the area of operation of Dagadparwa Tank, admeasuring 288 hectares, situated in the District of Akola and also possessing no-objection certificate from the respondent-authorities which is required to undertake fishing activity on the said tank. In the year 2015-16, the said tank, in accordance with the prevalent Government Policy, was allotted to the respondent No.5 by the respondent authorities as per the Government Resolution dated 26.06.2014. As can be seen from the allotment letter, even though, the said allotment letter is issued PAGE 2 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt on 07.01.2016, the lease period commenced from 01.07.2015 and ended on 30.06.2020. As per the letter of allotment, certain obligations were casted on the respondent No.5 one of which was regarding the conservation of atleast 50 mm fish seedlings of about 3.64 Lakhs. It was also obligatory that such a certificate has to be obtained from the fisheries department. Clause 4 further mandates that an annual production of about 109.2 metric ton is expected atleast from the said fishery tank and such a monthly and annual report is to be submitted with the Additional Commissioner Fisheries Department, Akola. Furthermore, the said allotment also mandates that as if there is a breach of any of the conditions, the allotment letter/agreement would come to an end on its own and without putting the parties on notice. (5) In pursuance to the said order, the allotment was granted in favour of the respondent No.5. After the expiry of the said period of lease, the respondent No.5 applied for an extension vide application dated 22.12.2020. Acting on the said application, the respondent No.3 addressed a communication dated 27.05.2021 to the respondent No.4 calling a report from the authority in view of the specific queries raised. (6) The said authority i.e. the respondent No.4 addressed a communication to the respondent No.3 on 03.06.2021 thereby giving a PAGE 3 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt detailed report stating that the respondent No.5 has breached the contractual obligations and therefore, should not be given an extension as prayed for. Such a report was put before the District Tank Allotment Committee in its meeting dated 15.07.2021. The said Committee after taking into consideration the report of the authorities as aforesaid recorded a finding that the respondent No.5 has breached the contractual obligations of the allotment letter and therefore, refused extension. In turn the said Committee granted allotment to the petitioner – society. (7) Being aggrieved by the said, the respondent No.5 challenged the said order before the respondent No.2 by filing an appeal. The said authority i.e. respondent No.2 i.e. the Commissioner of Fisheries allowed the appeal. In the said order, the respondent No.2 recorded a finding that the contract is cancelled in the last year and no opportunity was granted to the respondent no.5 to put forth his submission. It has also recorded a finding that since the tank was allotted belatedly, the extension could have been granted. (8) Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.4477/2021. During the course of hearing on the said petition, it was pointed out by the Additional Government PAGE 4 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt Pleader in the said matter that vide Government Resolution dated 03.07.2019 has been clarified by the subsequent Government Resolution dated 03.09.2021 and the remedy of filing revision under Clause 33 of the said Resolution is available to the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner raised a grievance regarding non-maintainability of a revision on a ground that statutory authority cannot be created by way of an executive instructions i.e. the Government Resolution, the Division Bench of this Court relegated the matter to the authority for entertaining revision. However, by doing so, vide order dated 15.03.2022 all the questions raised in the writ petition were kept open. In pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.1. The said revision came to be rejected on 03.01.2024. All these orders are impugned in the present petition. (9) I have heard Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent/State. (10) Mr. Ghare, by pointing me out that the orders of authorities below submit that non-application of mind is writ large on the face of all the impugned orders, since the order of the Commissioner Fisheries does not take into consideration a fact finding report in the form of spot inspection PAGE 5 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt done by the respondent No.4 at the behest of the respondent No.3. He also points out that the District Tank Allotment Committee on the basis of the said report has given a reasoned order as to why the extension as sought for by the respondent No.5 could not have been granted. He, therefore, submits that order being perverse cannot be sustained in law. As far as the order of the respondent No.1 in revision is concerned, it is the submission of Mr. Ghare, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order of the authority does not take into consideration all these facts and proceeds on a premise that only because the tank in question was allotted to the respondent No.5 belatedly would clothe him with the right to seek extension. In submission of Mr. Ghare, that would not be the purport of the said clause inasmuch as more particularly, when no such grievance was ever made earlier. (11) Per contra, Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 supports the impugned order. At the outset, he submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order since the period for which the petitioner was granted fishing rights is already over and therefore, the petition, as such, has become infructuous. He also points me out that even though, there may have been some breach of the contractual obligations, the fact remains that the lease or allotment was never terminated. By taking me to Clause 29 of the Government Resolution dated 03.07.2019, it PAGE 6 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt is his submission that the said Clause contemplates that if the tank in question is allotted belatedly, extension would be granted as of course. It is his submission that taking aid of this clause the authorities have rightly upset the order of the District Tank Allotment Committee. He, therefore, supports the impugned order. (12) I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance gone through the record. (13) The fact finding report was obtained in pursuance to the direction of the respondent No.3 is a matter of record. It can also be seen that a finding of fact has been recorded in the said inspection report that neither has the respondent No.5 obtained certificate from the authority concerned nor there is any production of fish as is expected. Detailed chart has been annexed to the said fact finding report stating that the respondent has not complied with the expected quantity of production. All these have been considered elaborately in the meeting of the District Tank Allotment Committee held on 15.07.2021. The reasoning of the respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner of Fisheries only proceeds on a premise that the respondent No.5 was put to loss by belated allotment. The said reasoning, according to my considered opinion PAGE 7 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt is not correct. Even the revisional authority has also proceeded on a premise that Clause 27 of the said Government Resolution referred to supra would clothe the respondent No.5, even though not absolute but at least a vested right to seek extension only due to the fact that the tank in question was allotted belatedly. Both the authorities below have not considered or not taken into consideration the fact that admittedly there was certain breach of obligations of which consequences were provided in the allotment order. The orders of the authorities being perverse are liable to be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction and they are being done so. (14) In that view of the matter, petition is allowed. Order dated 03.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision No.01/2022 and order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, State of Maharashtra in Appeal No.10/2021 are quashed and set aside. (15) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (16) Needless to mention that all the authorities concerned would process the application for allotment of fishing rights of the petitioner in accordance with the policy in vague as on date. (17) It is further clarified that the respondent No.5 has vide PAGE 8 OF 9 1.wp363.2024jud.odt pursis dated 15.02.2024 has placed on record a photocopy of cheque dated 02.11.2021 amounting to Rs.1,06,000/- only towards the period of extension granted to him. The respondent No.5 would be entitled to withdraw the said amount from the Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Akola in whose favour the cheque was drawn, if not already encashed. [Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.] Prity PAGE 9 OF 9 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 10:09:14