Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27998-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 416 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shivnath Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Seema Agarwal (S.C.), Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the orders dated 12.04.2024 and 31.08.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Khajani, Gorakhpur, whereby respondents no. 6 and 7 have been given fisheries rights. 2. Submissions have been made that petitioner is an elected member of Block Development Committee, Block Pidari, Pergana Dhuriyapur, Tehsil Khajani, District Gorakhpur and petition has been filed in representative capacity for benefit of entire villagers. Submissions have been made that dispute relates to ponds situated in plots no. 44 and 24 of the Village Bhatauli Bujurg, Tehsil Khajani, District Gorakhpur, wherein the ponds have been leased for fisheries purposes without making due publicity wherein though the advertisement has been published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran', the same was not undertaken by Duggi / Munadi and the same has been allotted to respondents no. 6 and 7, who are the only applicants and for lack of wide circulation, the allotment deserves to be cancelled. The complaints made in this regard have remained unanswered and, therefore, the present public interest litigation has been filed. 3. We have considered the averments contained in the petition and the documents annexed. 4. The plea pertaining to the lack of wide publicity regarding the auction, apparently, is baseless as it is specifically indicated in the impugned orders that the notice was published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' and the auction was held at the Tehsil Headquarter. 5. It would be seen from the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by S.D.O. that petitioner, Shivnath Kumar Gupta, raised objection regarding the allotment indicating that from the said pond, about 200 acres land was being irrigated and around the said pond, there was no boring. Enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that there was boring in the farms from which the irrigation work was being undertaken and consequently, the objection raised was rejected as baseless. 6. However, apparently, the plea of pond being used for irrigation has been abandoned while making the complaint dated 18.09.2024 by the petitioner (Annexure-4), wherein instead of the aspect pertaining to the irrigation, allegations were made regarding lack of Duggi / Munadi. No material has been produced indicating as to how the amount at which the pond has been leased to respondents no. 5 and 6 is at a lesser rate, no comparable figures either prior to the auction and/or relating to other ponds in or around the area have been produced to make out a case regarding the amount being at substantially lower rates despite the auction in question. 7. In view of the vacillating stands taken by the petitioner only with a view to question the allotment and for lack of any credible material placed on record, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition, purportedly in public interest. 8. Consequently, there is no substance in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad