Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to fishing rights in the Upper Wardha Reservoir, a water spread of about 5,500 hectares. The petitioner, a successful tenderer in 1997, held a five-year fishing lease executed on 21.8.1997 with the State Fisheries Department, paying Rs. 10,71,301 annually. After the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) was constituted under the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Act, 1997, a fresh agreement was executed on 6.10.1998 between the petitioner and VIDC for the remaining lease period. The petitioner claimed to have incurred substantial expenditure in developing the reservoir and faced poaching issues. He sought and was granted an extension of the lease for another five years from 20.6.2002 to 30.6.2007 with a 15% increase, executed on 2.7.2001. The State later contended that the extension was irregular as per a Government Resolution dated 6.4.2000, which allegedly transferred fishing rights back to the Fisheries Department, and that the VIDC had no authority to extend without following tender procedures. On 12.7.2002, the Executive Engineer, VIDC, directed suspension of all fishing operations. The petitioner challenged the suspension by filing Writ Petition No. 2542 of 2002, wherein the Division Bench passed interim orders, including one on 14.8.2002 directing the Government to take a decision within two weeks. Without providing any reasons, the State issued a notice on 1.10.2002 asking the petitioner to appear before the Fisheries Minister on 8.10.2002 in Mumbai. On 9.10.2002, the petitioner received by fax an order dated 8.10.2002 cancelling the lease. The petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition with liberty and filed the present petition assailing the suspension and cancellation. The core legal issue was whether the termination was legal and valid. The petitioner argued violation of natural justice as no fair hearing was given. The respondents defended the action, citing M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Bansilal Narayandas Kankaria v. Special Land Acquisition Officer to contend that natural justice was not required where facts admitted only one conclusion. The court examined these contentions, noting the trite law that natural justice must be viewed with circumstantial flexibility. The judgment extract ends at the argument stage without recording a final decision.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Cancellation of Fishing Lease - Principles of Natural Justice - The State Government cancelled the fishing lease without notice or hearing; the court examined the requirement of compliance with natural justice, noting that natural justice has circumstantial flexibility and that if only one conclusion is possible, a writ may not be issued merely for breach (referring to M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1999 AIR SCW 2754 and Bansilal Narayandas Kankaria v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 638). (Paras 11-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the action of the State Government in terminating the contract is legal and valid.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- natural justice must be viewed in circumstantial flexibility
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999 AIR SCW 2754) - if only one conclusion possible court need not issue writ merely for breach of natural justice
- Bansilal Narayandas Kankaria v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 638) - similar principle
