1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.2906 of 2008 [M/s. International Maritech Pvt. Ltd., Ngp., Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Adv., for Respondent no.5. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 17th November,2008. Heard Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was awarded a fishing contract of Upper Wardha Reservoir on 1st July, 1997, for a period of five years, and on expiry of the said period, a fresh lease was also granted for a further period of five years, i.e., upto 30th June, 2007. However, in the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Chief Minister had passed an order on 12th July, 2002 and cancelled the petitioner's lease rights. The said Order of Chief Minister came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 3806 of 2002, and by way of interim order passed 2 therein, the petitioner continued to resume the fishing activities from 1st January, 2003. On 20th March, 2007, a further extension of one year was granted, i.e., upto 30th June, 2008. The petitioner was not successful in obtaining a fresh contract for lease in view of the Govt. policy, and it was the respondent no.5, who has been awarded the contract for fishing from July, 2008 onwards. The only contention raised in this petition is that on the basis of the Govt. Resolution dated 19th June, 2008, the petitioner was required to be granted a further extension beyond 30th June, 2008, and the communication dated 24th June, 2008 is illegal. It is further contended that the extension of one year, i.e., upto 30th June, 2009 ought to have been granted to the petitioner. We have noted that from 12th July, 2002 to 1st January, 2003, the petitioner's contract for fishing remained suspended and, thus, the petitioner had lost about six months. Mr. Bhandarkar also contended that though the initial contract was signed on 1st July, 1997, the actual fishing had commenced only on 8th January, 1998. We have perused the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandry and Fisheries on 20th March, 2007, thereby granting 3 one year's extension to the petitioner, and we have noted that the Minister considered various aspects, including the period, which was lost, from 12th July, 2002 to 1st January, 2003. In our opinion, the Govt. Resolution dated 19th June, 2008 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner and more so when the petitioner is not the party who claims to have signed the first contract. The Govt. Resolution states that five years' period of contract must be available to the contractor, and if there are any interruptions on account of reasons not attributable to the contractor, an extension should be granted for the said period, so as to ensure that the contractor gets fishing rights for five years. In the instant case, the petitioner had five years' duration twice, and in addition, extension of one year was granted by the Minister. We are, therefore, satisfied that the communication dated 24th June, 2008, or the action of the State Govt., in bringing to an end the petitioner's contract on 30th June, 2008 is not vitiated on any count. Hence the Writ Petition is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4