TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 614 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Jalkar') immediately after its establishment and. registration in 1950 (A. D.) The fishery rights in the Jalkar which were settled with the appellant for the year 1974-75 as theretofore was to run from July 1, 1974, to the end of June, 1975 at the Jamma. of ₹ 1,50,000/-. At the end of the said year, it was discovered that the appellant had defaulted in payment of the Jamma to the extent of ₹ 66,869/-. The settlement of fishery rights in the Jalkar for the period commencing from July 1, 1975 to June 30,1976 was made in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 through its Revenue Department as a result of the public auction at which the former offered the highest bid of ₹ 1,65,000/-. In February, 1976, respondent No. 1 made a representation to the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar praying for a remission of ₹ 75,000/- in the amount at which the settlement had been made in his favour on the ground that he had suffered a heavy loss during the aforesaid period of settlement as a result of the unlawful activities of the members of the appellant society. In the alternative, he prayed that in case the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the settlement and within a week from that date. It was made clear in the concluding part of the communication that in case the appellant failed to makethe deposit as aforesaid, 'the settlement be issued by highest bid.'On June 30, 1976, when respondent No. 1 went to obtain the'dakhil parwana', he is stated to have been informed of this subsequent decision of the, State Government. Averring that he had been put to a considerable financial loss as a result of the aforesaid subsequent order of the Government settling the fishery rights in Jalkar in favour of the appellant, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna on July 2, 1976 praying that the aforesaid order settling the fishery rights of the Jalkar with the appellant be quashed by a writ of certiorari and the, State Government be directed by a writ of mandamus to execute the lease in his favour for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and not to disturb his possession over the fishery right in question during the currency of the term of the lease, The respondent also prayed for such other orders, as the Court might think fit and proper. The writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution, the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. 2. That to a case like the present one, the doctrine of promissory estopped had no application and the High Court has erred in relying upon the same. 3. That in any case, since there was no breach of any statutory duty in the present case, a writ of mandamus could not have been issued by the High Court. Mr. Lalnaryan Sinha has, on the other hand, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in applying the principle of promissory estoppel and there is no warrant for interfering with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We shall deal seriatim with the aforesaid three contentions raised on behalf on the appellant. But before attempting to do, that, we would like to dispose of the, preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 to the effect that as the period for which the impugned order dated June 29, 1976 settling the Jalkar with the appellant was issued has expired and the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the aforesaid. judgment and order of the High Court the appellant has no manner of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l v. M/s. B. K. Mondal Sons. ([1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 876.) It will also be useful to refer to the Judgment of this Court in Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh ([1968] 3S.C.R.214) where while reiterating the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it was observed There is no question of estoppel or ratification in a case where there is contravention of the provisions of Article 299(1) of the Constitution. The reason is that the provisions of section 175(3) of the Government of India Act and the corresponding provisions of Art. 299(1) of the Constitution have not been enacted for the sake of mere form but they have been enacted for safeguarding the Government, against unauthorised contracts. The provisions are embodied in s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act and Art. 299(1) of the Constitution on the ground of public policy--on the ground of protection of general public .... and these formalities cannot be waived or dispensed with. In the instant case, it is obvious that the settlement of the Jalkar with respondent No. 1 was not made and executed in the manner prescribed by Article 299 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it could not be said to be valid and bindin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court rejected his plea that after the receipt of the Government order, he invested large amounts of money in purchasing boats etc. and had to enter into contracts with large number of employees whose services were needed for the Jalkar. It would be appropriate to refer to the following observations of the High Court in this respect :- The statement referred to above is such too vague and general. No details or particulars have been given, nor any document annexed to the original writ application, or the rejoinder aforesaid in support of these averments. therefore, do not accept the correctness of the statements. However, it was very unlikely that the petitioner 'who had already a subsisting lease would not be having enough or sufficient materials and it was after the communication regarding lease for the period 1976 to 1978 that the petitioner started purchasing boats etc. The vague and general statements that have been made in paragraph 17 of the original writ application do not appear to me to be acceptable. The doctrine of promissory estoppel could also not be, pressed into service in the present case, as it is well settled that there cannot be any estoppe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also, not binding and enforceable, Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not ,entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. This brings us to the consideration of the last question of the relief which can be granted to the appellant. The settlement of Jalkar with respondent No. 1 undoubtedly did not create any legal right in his favour but as the year 1976-77 has already run out, the appeal in so far as that year is concerned has become infructuous but in so far as the appeal relates to the year 1977-78, we are of the opinion that as respondent No. 1 is not validly exploiting the Jalkar and the application by the appellant for settlement thereof with it is pending with the authorities and according to the revised policy and procedure formulated by it in exercise of its absolute authority and incorporated in its Revenue and Land Reforms Department's circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
