1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5323 OF 2009. Sau. Deepa W/o Diliprao Jadhav, Age 46 years, Occ.Business, R/o Ashta, Tq.Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Marine Lines, Tarapurwala Aquarium, Mumbai. 3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries, Osmanabad, Central Building, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.S.M.Vibhute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the State. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 05.01.2010. PER COURT 1. Mentioned for final hearing. 2. By consent, taken up for immediate final hearing in view of peculiar fact situation. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was given contract for fishing in the Sangmeshwar Medium Project at village Lanjeshwar, for a period of five (5) years. The petitioner's tender was accepted. In the meanwhile, there were some complaints against the petitioner regarding omission to provide fishing business to the local fishermen etc. The competent authority had, therefore, cancelled the licence of fishing. The inquiry, however, revealed that the complaints were ill-motivated and, therefore, the relevant order of cancellation was revoked by the Commissioner of fisheries vide order dated 3 6.12.2008. 4. The petitioner's contention is that for a period of about six (6) months the business of fishing was stalled due to the interim revocation of the licence and until the subsequent revival of the same. The petitioner, therefore, sought extension of the period as provided under terms of the Government Resolution dated 19.6.2008. The Commissioner of fisheries has, however, declined the request on the ground that previously extension for one year was granted in her favour. Hence, the Writ Petition. 5. Heard learned counsel. 6. It is manifestly clear that the Government Resolution No.........-1208/7155/......77/.....-13, Mantralaya extension, Mumbai, dated 19.6.2008, provides for extension of period if the contractor was unable to do the fishing business as a result of certain litigation in the Court or due to the interim stay granted by the competent 4 authority of the fisheries Department. The purport of the Government Resolution seems to have given a helping hand to the contractor in case of contingency which could not be foreseen by him. There is hardly any dispute that the petitioner lost business approximately for a period of about six (6) months. The fact that the licence of the petitioner was revoked as a result of complaints made against her is also undisputed. The Competent Authority lateron found that the complaints were ill-motivated and that the licence was erroneously revoked. Consequently, the contract was restored in her favour. 7. What transpires from the record is that this petition was admitted on 22nd September 2009. Rule has been issued and interim stay is granted by this Court. With the result, the process of calling tenders and giving the work for fishing in the Dam is presently stalled. The Government revenue is also being lost due to such intervening circumstances. 5 8. The learned A.G.P. would point out that previously extension for one year was given to the petitioner and therefore, the request for second time extension came to be rejected. On consideration of the Government Resolutions and the relevant material, it is amply clear that the previous extension of one year was given to a majority of fishing contractors on account of natural calamity and not in terms of the Government Resolution which was made applicable to all i.e. who were affected due to lack of rain. The extension granted vide GR dated 16.7.2004 has no nexus with the benefit which the petitioner had sought. Considering the special case of the petitioner, the request for extension of six (6) months or alternatively for refund of the proportionate amount of licence fee should have been allowed. As stated before, much time has elapsed due to the subsequent developments and presently the fishing business is not being done nor it is beneficial to anyone including the Respondents. Consequently, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to continue the work of fishing at the same place 6 i.e. Sangmeshwar Medium Project w.e.f. 1.2.2010 onwards till 30.6.2010, by charging the proportionate licence fee as may be permissible under the Rules. The counsel for the petitioner is ready and willing to pay such licence fees. 9. In the result, Rule is made absolute. The petition is partly allowed. The Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to do fishing activities in the same place for period between 1.2.2010 to 30.6.2010 by accepting proportionate licence fees in accordance with the Rules. The total licence fee shall be determined within a period of two (2) weeks and the same shall be deposited by the petitioner within one (1) week thereafter so as to complete the official formalities. The petitioner will not be entitled as a matter of right, to continue the fishing business after 30.6.2010, unless she would be granted afresh contract if is found eligible as a highest bidder. The Respondents shall commence the further process for the tender work for period commencing from 1.7.2010 onwards in accordance with the Government Resolutions and 7 Rules. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 10. The parties may act on authenticated copy. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp532309