BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED versus SIPAHI SINGH &.OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 01-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
\ 
I 
BIHAR EASTERN GAi"\IGETIC FISHERMEN 
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMn:ED 
v. 
SlPAID SINGH &.OTHERS 
September 1, 1977 
375 
[P. K. GOSWAMI, JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Ch·il Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order XLI Rules 4 and 33-Right 
to obtain reversal of lvhole decree. H·here it proceeds un ground con1mon to 
all. applies t:\·en at appellare stage~ 
Conjfituriou of India 1950, Article 299, Set1/en1ent of the Jalkar inco1nplete, 
not nzade and executed in the n1anner prescribed by Article 299 of the Consti~ 
tion. whether ralid. 
Transfer of Properry· Act (Act IV) 1882, sections 54 and 101. General 
Clauses, Act, s. 3(26)-Regisiration Act 1908, section 17(1)(d)-Contract of 
Sale/ Lea~e o/ fisl1ing rights tu be \'a/id, being a "profit a prendn/', nunt be by 
mean~ of a registered i'}strument. 
A 
B 
c 
Constitution of India, Ariicle 226-fVhen can 1nandCi1fius. issue. 
EJtoppel-Pronzissory e.5toppel~There cannot be_ any estoppel against the 
Gorern111ent. 
-D 
The fisher:Y' rights in the Gangapath Islampur Jalkar v.:hich settled with 
the appellant for the year 1974 to 1975 (i.e. 1-7-1974 to 30-6-1975) at the. 
Jam.ma of Rs. 1,50,000/- was, however, made in favour of one Sipahi Singh 
(Respondent No. 1) for the period commencing from-July--1, 1975 to June 
30, 1976, as a result of the public auction at which respondent No. 1 offered 
the highest bid of Rs. 1,65,000/-. 
On a· representation made by respondent 
No. l, on 1-2-1976, for a remission in the amount at which the settlement 
had be~n made in his favour, on the ground that he had suffered a heavy 
E 
los3 during the year 1975-76, as a result of the unlawful activities of 
the 
members of the appellant society, or in the alternative for granting him the 
cont:nuance of fishery rights for, the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 at Rs. 1,65,000/-, 
the· Government made the deposit by respondent No. l of one·.year's settle-
ment fee at Rs. 1,6S,OOO/- a sine qua non to the- issue of the order of settle-
ment. in his favour. 
Respondent No. 1 made this deposit on 3-5-1976 and 
inforrr.ed the Government. 
Ho\vever, taking a . favourable view of the re-
presentations made by the appellant society on Febn1ary 18, 1976 and :h.Iarch 
9, 1976 to its Revenue 1Iinister and the 
Chief 1-Iinister 
respectively, 
the 
F 
Government of Bihar changed its mind and settled the fishery rights \VitR. 
the appellant, vide its letter No. IO/S.-4032176-1976, dated June 29, 1976, 
on condition of the deposit by the latter of Rs. 1,65,000/- plus the earlier 
arrears of Rs. 58,868/-, in three equal instalments; the first instalment to be 
deposited before takirig the settlement and within a week from that date. It 
\\-'as also made clear that in case the appellant failed to make the deposit 
aforesaid the settlement be issued by highest bid. 
On June 30, 1976. when 
re~;oond~nt No. 1 went to obtain the "dakhil parwana", he was informed of 
G 
this subsequent decision 
of the - State 
Governn1ent. 
Respondent - No. 
1 
challenged the said orders by filing a writ - petition under Art 226 of the 
Constitution. Though the High 
Court of Bihar found that 
there "'as no 
binding or enforceable contract between respondent No. 1 and the State Govern-
ment, it allowed the "'rit 
petition relying on the 
doctrine of 
promissory 
estoppel. 
AIIov.rjng the nppeal by special leave, the Court, 
HEID : ( 1) It is no doubt true \hat the year 197 6· 77 has run out and 
H 
the State has not~preferred any appeal against the adverse decision of the High 
Court but ~?nee it has been impleaded as a respondent to the present appeal 
and in Clctivtly supporting the appellant Y.-ho was indispu!ab1y in po~session and __ _ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS 
(l9?8J 1 S.C.R. 
enjoyment of the Jalkar at the commencement of the proceedings under Article 
226 of the Constitution and lost the same as a result of the judgment and 
• -1. 
order of the High Court and the appellant could not effectively pursue the 
application for the 
lease for the year 1977-78 and the reversal of the judg· 
ment and order of the High Court which proceeds on grounds common to the 
appellant and the respondents 2 to 4 can be 
made in favour of respondent 
No. 1 to meet the ends of justice under Order XU Rules 4 and 33 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure and the State Government might have been prevented from, 
settling the Jalkar in favour of the appellant because of the mandatory injunc· 
tion granted by the High C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.