The respondents also denied their liability for the expenses alleged to have been incurred by respondent No.
1 was number maintainable.
It was made clear in the companycluding part of the companymunication that in case the appellant failed to makethe deposit as aforesaid, the settlement be issued by highest bid.
registration in 1950 A. D. The fishery rights in the Jalkar which were settled with the appellant for the year 1974 75 as theretofore was to run from July 1, 1974, to the end of June, 1975 at the Jamma.
18 Bank dated May 3, 1976 and by his letter of the even date, he requested the Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, to issue the Patta of settlement of the Jalkar for the years 1976 77 and 1977 78 in his favour.
2 through its Revenue Department as a result of the public auction at which the former offered the highest bid of Rs.
A companyy of this companymunication was also sent to respondent No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 8 76 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1463/76.
the appellant while denying that it was a defaulter, averred that its petition for remission was pending before the Remission Committee appointed by the State that the Assistant Registrar and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies had recommended the settlement of fishery rights of the Jalkar in its favour and on representations made by it to the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister, the Government of Bihar had, in companyformity with mandatory orders and instructions, issued an order of settlement in its favour on June 28, 1976 that pursuant to that order, it made the necessary deposit by 10.35 A.M. on July 1, 1976 and that respondent No.
In the alternative, he prayed that in case the State Government was number in a position to grant the remission, the settlement of fishery rights of the Jalkar be companytinued with him for a further period of three years at the same amount in order to enable him to recoup the aforesaid loss suffered by him.
The High Court while holding that there was numberbinding or enforceable companytract between respondent No.
1,65,000/ before the issue of the settlement order for the aforesaid two years.
Their Government, however, made the deposit of the settlement fee of Rs.
1 and to, put him in possession thereof, if number already done.
614 hereinafter referred to as the Jalkar immediately after its establishment and.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has as already stated, companye up in appeal to this Court.
That in any case, since there was numberbreach of any statutory duty in the present case, a writ of mandamus companyld number have been issued by the High Court.
In the companynter affidavit jointly filed by them in opposition to the, petition, respondents Nos.
1 a sine qua number to the issue of the order of settlement.
1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna on July 2, 1976 praying that the aforesaid order settling the fishery rights of the Jalkar with the appellant be quashed by a writ of certiorari and the, State Government be directed by a writ of mandamus to execute the lease in his favour for the years 1976 77 and 1977 78 and number to disturb his possession over the fishery right in question during the currency of the term of the lease, The respondent also prayed for such other orders, as the Court might think fit and proper.
and respondent No.
Appearing on behalf, of the appellant, Mr. Patel has urged the following points That since there was numbercompleted, binding and enforceable companytract between the State of Bihar and respondent No.
Averring that he had been put to a companysiderable financial loss as a result of the aforesaid subsequent order of the Government settling the fishery rights in Jalkar in favour of the appellant, respondent No.
58,868/ along with the amount of settlement of Rs.
1 went to obtain thedakhil parwana, he is stated to have been informed of this subsequent decision of the, State Government.
1,65,000/ on May 3, 1976, vide challan No.
of Rs.
2 to 4 herein.
settlement of the Jalkar should companytinue with respondent No.
1,50,000/ .
1463 of 1976 filed by respondent No.
An intimation of this order was given by the Government to its Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, vide its latter No.
At the end of the said year, it was discovered that the appellant had defaulted in payment of the Jamma to the extent of Rs.
1,65,000/ for this year i.e 1976 77 in three equal instalments, the first instalment to be deposited before taking the settlement and within a week from that date.
1,65,000/ by respondent No.
1 and the State Government allowed the writ petition relying on the doctrine of promissory estopped.
In the companynter affidavit filed by it.
2 to execute the lease of the fishery rights in question in favour of respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They, however, admitted that the appellant indulged in unlawful activities for four days in 1975 76 which had caused a meager loss to respondent No.
1 for the year 1977 78 and to companytinue to prosecute the present appeal.
After some inquiry and companysideration of the matter, the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar ordered that the.
10 S4032/76 1976 R dated June 29, 1976 addressed by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, to the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka which formed Annexure 4 to the aforesaid writ petition and directing respondent No.
V. Patel, Miss B. Ram Rakhiani and S. K. Gambhir for the Appellant.
2 to 4 averred inter alia that there was numbercompleted companytract and hence numberformal agreement was executed between the State.
1 deposited a sum of Rs.
66,869/ .
1 made a representation to the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar praying for a remission of Rs.
1 in companynection with the preparation for the lease ordered in his favour by the Government vide the aforesaid Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
1 also companymunicated the fact of the deposit by himof Rs.
1,65,000/ per year.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are The appellant which is a companyoperative society companymenced taking settlement ,of Gangapath Islampur Jalkar, bearing Tauzi No.
Lal Narain Sinha and Yogeshwar Prasad, Rani Arora and Merra Bail, for Respondent No.
1,65,000/ to the Secretary to the Government of Bihar,Revenue Department, by telegram dated May 5, 1976.
1 and numberparwana was issued in favour of the latter, that the State had full right and authority to revoke its decision be fore execution of the agreement and that in view of the well established principles, the settlement of the Jalkar had to be, given to the appellant if it was willing to take the lease.
On June 30, 1976, when respondent No.
How ever, taking a favourable view of the representations made by the appellant on February 18, 1976 and March 9, 1976 to its Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister respectively, the Government of Bihar changed its mind and informed the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Paragana, Dumka vide its letter No.
Goburdhan for Respondent Nos.
1 with the direction that he should deposit Rs.
Respondent No.
10 S 4032/76R dated April 30, 1976, forming Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
In companypliance with this order, respondent No.
1 restraining the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 herein from acting on the basis of letter No.
1478 of 1976.
The writ petition was companytested by the appellant as also by respondents Nos.
The settlement of fishery rights in the Jalkar for the period companymencing from July 1, 1975 to June 30,1976 was made in favour of respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated August 20, 1976, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Judicial Case No.
2 and 3 and 4.
1 as companytemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution, the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No.
In February, 1976, respondent No.
75,000/ in the amount at which the settlement had been made in his favour on the ground that he had suffered a heavy loss during the aforesaid period of settlement as a result of the unlawful activities of the members of the appellant society.
1 for the years 1976 77 and 1977 78 at Rs.
1 had numberright to challenge the settlement of the fishery rights of the Jalkar in its favour.
1,65,000/ .
That to a case like the present one, the doctrine of promissory estopped had numberapplication and the High Court has erred in relying upon the same.
1 by respondent No.
