.Il:_i!Jt '^Ii(!!S[Kia» @WOTIl^*ff03anil^®^ AMA 1 •B/SCT^ U^^|Bpaa^^,jEyB|MBf sfapm^ ° BpE^ 'rapg p&pcuBa ($) t J!)IUB(|3 -nSIQ °V@^'•VPVBVRLVW. fr) fyQ)svSB^3^sa^ ptKrta^ s»i ( 3C^B^^eSSfflf ^S3SBE^^ jl UEppg S^; IpBSSptSlpC) (£) •(•OD) tjSig 'UBIEUBIQ anp8lp3Q (^ ('0'0)WSES. WOV^K>dKQ lU3uafopAaQ[ ABqsy 'AiKpiDgg %ionp °(pE@sinB(]iD jo 3ws sViL (l) ••siNaaNOdsas snsaaEA (OD) iBUEq3 •WSQ <U&N TPl 'OSEN 8®IHA© o/y[<s]BaCt€t(Kx|Bpegb'UBq^.Bqcpf pipqV o/s •HBqa uanui jrepreay T^noiqj, uS^I qnraeg eKtpp^ .^ ..-••''V^1AV .^^" :^Sf" ^^^?' :H2Momiaa WS SO -Z77s-^ "OMTtfOIIMad AiaM, ^cutsvTisra^ aaf33Evaiaaf AO i.aoooBSMH aa.L j@ o xi-ae-22 Sf^F'^i ^HFS^^CT y •&' '^.^t'itte^^'EilTi^'ltS,Es(WI*('y; ^^l3;)^:..t«S-"V !.UM^h|*yt^'l"'"?''s"^"""~ ^" W{."'208. '"Rl*<8T' •sit^tt S^T^ •^^ 28.8.2003 . Petitioner by Shri Awadh Respoudents No. 1, 2 ^ Advocate. Sy fhis petition under ludia the petitioner; seeks to by the Respondent No.3. The petitioner's case isf November, 1998 the Respondeij a^reement .by which the petiticj activities in the Shondur Dam fl five years wffl expire on •29th No{ way of the mipugned oider dt, ^ canym.g out the fishing activitif the agreem.ent itsetf the agreem.!| Siuce 5,6,2003 fhe respondenl^ have restiamed the^ petitioner faj dame. By sueh actiou ftle petiticj The respondents ought to havj fishing activities in the b.uckel iUegal action arid ilfegal interfei^ petitioner was carryuig out un<^ accoidnig to fUe agreeiaent de^ daniages. It is thsrefore prayec^ produce ffie enfire teconl and tj ^ripathi, Advocate. md 4 by'Shri Ranbir Singh, Gdvt. At-ticle 226/227 of tiie Constitutiou of chaBlenge fhe oider ^FS|fl?T4N tTPT^ "^ '^^St^PE^R ^ ^rf^Ep? gD^f[ 5.6.2003 passed &at vide Annexure P/l dt. 30th it No.l aiid petttioner eutered iato aa iner was atlowed to cany out fishing »ra period ofjive years. That period of yember, 2003, but tlie responcL.-^ ^.., i.6.2003 icstrained the petitioner from. ss in fhe aforesaid aara.. Accor''' „--» sutwas come to aa end on 15.6.2003. ° iu an arbitraiy aiid itlegal maiuier cany out the fishiag actiyities in. the n has sufiered a loss ofRs. 3,80,000/. provided iaciltties for canyiag out area otlierwise on; accouitt of thjeir ;uce m. the fisheiy activities w'lucK. fhe ter the permissiou of the ^apondents |d; the respondentsjare I&fete l|a pay that fhe respondents be da-eelBd^foi |> grovide Rs. 3,80,OpQ/- wiffi. in|feiBstl: | . ^,,,^^WW<»i.»f*IANI!!<>l*rf""'' -•*•; 1«;s s* 's"^ XI-HG-22 sn^t^i f<MH>Nl^t a»*ipt> ^-f^tf "X •g%sgNRR(':w;itwf%,;II«tw-s>|f B s:^, WWtt^tt<(f<» "^ 200 aiiisiStdW'aS'B ta the ^etfltioiier which Idss arbifrary aiid iUegal action, oft|- I have heaixl Shri Awl pefitioner and ShriRanbir Suij T'he agreeinent was entej petitioaer and tfae Responde41 Shondur Dam, Para. 2 of fhe aUowed to take rieeessar^- acj years. However, paia-3 of agreeiaerit fa.as been executed let November 1999 and thatl fishing activities for a periodj Ttierefore iu view of this paraj pertaitted fo have fishing rightj coaten.tiou of the leai-ued agrceinent says th.at the aad fh.e agreeinent was execut respondeuts should have activities up to the last day of for ttie State submits that this I offdate 15*hJune,|2003. Having heaid leamed cc the facts aad circuinstaaces agreenient elitered^ between ttu arguineut ofleaniejd counsel fe| aud even m: para 3 of the agn <l>t<ll'Wtl-t tliwt^t Py& <Faitsn ^a.^aiNnatS^ to [Uas suffered by the petitioner due oft|]e'respondeute. [. idh Tripathi, leanied counsel for the ;h, leamed Govt, Advocate for the State. red on 30*h November 1998 befrween (he it No.l regarding fisheries right ih fhe ^greeinent says fhat the petitioner was ^ivities teinporarily for a period of five ic agreem.ent furfher says that the jbetween the parties for the period from. the petitioner is atlowed to have thc. of five yeai-s up to 15th Juiie •9003.; |<3 of the agreenieut the petitioDST'Wfc^- .1 in tiie dam up to I5& June 2003. 'r1- ~ coiitiserfor the petitioner is that Siofie c- fishi{ig activities was allpwed for five years^. id on ll!t November, 1998 therefore thei aljowed the petitioner to have fishius |>ctober,2003. Where^, learued counsel. [five years period was subject tp the'cut /^ ': s ! ! ! , ^unsel B& the parties, baving i^gaid to. I ' .' i, : \; t>f ffae case and haying icgajcd to tiiel parties, I do not find aiiy &ZGe^iEfffie|| )(- the petitipner. It is'jtrue tiiatim^ paia|2js| |ei]ieut ith.as beeiy mentioiiedji;t}iat;|Bffi| » ;aiII ^:Rt s»-»--- ^LMiy -teHCg22 'S^ •-'(I^ICTt,; WlS'WItt, R«K<3< v i®[T^F'q^ -Ul.f. 'XS^^rrt *H*tCTI a»N(<B ''Ht, 20ff 1^?I' 3lA%'<I Ki-li'fe 3II§B ^liiRttit?o attol l^ltWHfta '\ J .- -.; .ite caAnot petjti' Rslung activities was allQwed. for fiifc ^aeufi&ned tliat this five;years periodj f003. TMerefore.; flie ]3etitioner ^ctiviiaes-'ailteF 15d1'Jurie, 2003. LearQed. 'couiisel fi^r. the t)etitioner has deposited Mcence fees be aUowed to have fishin.g activities ^rgHinent also I do not find any tereement it has been speci6caBy m^ ^yould be aBowed Einly up to 15dl Ju4< As far as ttte question'ofiaeu](r betitioner ou account bt not aBowip.! (rom 5th June, 2003 to 15U1 JuBe, l^t liberty to avail apprQpriate reined}{ With the above observation.s (h pie same is 'disposed offiuany. Gon^ llisposed of. ' Hieuitnn 2t)03 ^i<ifo<tit^ ^w^fi ti.^^ <f^^.i< ^ sif^ sn^r jears but later ou it has been was timited only up to 15th June, be ailpwed to have fishing ^tioner furttier submite fhat the |br five yeara, fherefore he should [for total five years period. In this Ifeice because in para-3 of fhe ;ntioned that the fishmg actiyities fe 2003.. i loss of Rs. 3,80,000/- by^ ~ him to have fishing actiyities ! is concenied, the petitionerT available to him. ua.d.er the law. (his pefition does not survive and ^equently I.A. No. 722872003 also ~SSF—1 L.C. Bhadbo Judge ^sEtl^