LPA No. 277/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6603 OF 2011 Swargiya Rajiv Gandhi Mastya-vyavsay Society, Yeldari Camp, through its Chairman Sayyad Mabud s/o. Sayyad Maheboob R/o. Bamni, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ....Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Commissioner For Fishery or Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society, (Fishery), Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society (Fishery) Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 3. The Honorable Minister For Fishery Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Deputy Director Fisheries, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 5. The Asst. Commissioner, Fishery, Station Road, Parbhani. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani. 7. Purna Mastya Vyavasay Society, Through its Chairman, Savali, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents. Mr. R.S. Shajule, Advocate for appellant. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. LPA No. 277/11 2 Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No. 7. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 7th October, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The letters patent appeal is filed against the order made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6603/2011. The writ petition is filed by the present appellant to challenge the order made by Commissioner, Fishery, dated 12.8.2011 by which it is held that the appellant - Society and the respondent No. 7 - Society can both operate in the water of Yeldari Camp Dam. The correspondence made with the two societies, asking them to remain present for auction in respect of the fishery rights and dated 1.7.2011 is also challenged in the writ petition. The appellant prays for interim relief to prevent respondent No. 7 from participating in the process of auction. The learned Single Judge has refused to grant such relief in the order dated 8.9.2011, which is under challenge in the present proceeding. 2. Both the sides are heard in the present proceeding. The record of writ petition and the record produced in the present proceeding show that in the year 2003 the respondent No. 7 - Society was registered and its area of operation was from dam line of Yeldari Camp Dam up to the distance of 12 k.m. of river bed. In the year 2008 the respondent No. 7 applied to Assistant LPA No. 277/11 3 Registrar for permission to amend the bye-laws and to the extent the area of operation. The area of operation was extended and the water of Yeldari Camp Dam was also included in the area of operation. At the same time, the appellant - Society came to be registered and as per the bye-laws, it was permitted to operate in the water of Yeldari Camp Dam. No Objection Certificate was issued to both the societies by Deputy Director of Fishery in August 2008 in respect of this area of operation. Both the sides challenged the permissions given to the opposite society by filing proceedings before Commissioner, Minister etc. Even writ petitions were filed. In Writ Petition No. 4977/2011 filed by the present appellant a direction was given to the Commissioner to decide the proceeding filed by the present appellant and then the Commissioner gave decision that both the societies can operate in the water of the dam. 3. There is Government Resolution of the State Government dated 15.10.2001 to the effect that if the area covered by the water of dam is more than 200 Hectors, more societies can be allowed to operate in that area and the rights of fishery can be given by way of auction. Admittedly the area covered by Yeldari Dam is more than 6000 Hectors. The advocate of the appellant relied on orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4805/2008. The orders were challenged up to the LPA No. 277/11 4 Apex Court. In the order dated 10.9.2008 this Court [Coram : F.I. Rebello & K.U. Chandiwal, JJ. ] had considered the aforesaid Government Resolution and ordered to hold auction for giving rights. This order was reviewed in Review Application Stamp No. 24862 of 2008, but the application was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order made on review application was challenged in the Apex Court, but the said petition was also dismissed. 4. As per the record, it appears that there are circumstances like the jurisdiction to respondent No. 7 - Society as per the bye-laws to operate in the water of Dam, no Objection Certificate and the finding given to the effect that two societies can operate in the water of dam in view of the area covered by the water. In the light of these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant the stay. In view of aforesaid circumstance, this Court holds that interference is not warranted. In any way, there is no prima facie case for granting interim relief and so the appeal stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/