1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4089 /2010 ( Mahatma Matsya Vyawasay Sahakari Sanstha vs. Asst.Fisheries Commissioner and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 15th March, 2011. Heard Mr. P.D.Meghe, learned counsel for petitioner; Mrs Rashi Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr P C Madkholkar, for respondent no.3. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of allotment of fishery tank to the respondent no.3 by executing the agreement of lease for a period of five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is bad in law on the following grounds:- (a) that the tank in question does not come under the area of operation of respondent no.3-society and, therefore, the respondent no.3-society is not entitled to get the same for fishery purposes; (b) if the tank in question comes within the area 2 of operation of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3- society, in that event, the society which offers higher price for the said purpose, ought to have been considered by the Government for allotment of fishery tank. This procedure has not been followed by the State and, therefore, the allotment is bad in law. Mrs.Rashi Deshpande, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader has submitted that there were three applications received by the State for allotment of fishery tank in question – one is by the petitioner society, the second is by respondent no.3-society and third is by another society. It is submitted that the tank in question did not come under the area of operation of the third society and, therefore, the third society did not come forward. However so far as the status of the petitioner and respondent no.3 society is concerned, the petitioner society was put in category “D” in view of certain irregularities which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. However so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, it is “C” class category and since the tank in question falls within the area of operation of both the societies, out of these two, in view of the categorization done on the basis of the audit, the State Government thought it proper to allot the tank in question in favour of respondent no.3-society. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has disputed the contention canvassed by the counsel for the 3 petitioner that the tank in question does not come within the area of operation of respondent no.3 society. It is submitted that as per the Bye-laws of the society which are approved by the Registrar, Cooperate Societies, clearly demonstrate that the tank in question comes within the area of operation of the respondent no.3-society. Having considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and after perusing the reply filed on behalf of the State, it appears that the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 society applied for allotment of tank, since the petitioner society was put in “D” category because of the irregularity, the State Government thought it fit to allot the tank in question in favour of respondent no.3 It is in these circumstances, we are of the view that the action cannot be said to be either perverse or bad in law. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare