9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition due to lack of a completed, binding, and enforceable contract. 2. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 3. Issuance of a writ of mandamus in the absence of a statutory duty. Summary: Re: Contention No. 1: The Supreme Court held that the settlement of the Jalkar with respondent No. 1 was not made and executed in the manner prescribed by Article 299 of the Constitution. The provisions of Article 299 are mandatory and require that a contract made in the exercise of the executive power must satisfy three conditions: it must be expressed to be made by the President or Governor, executed on their behalf, and executed by such person and in such manner as directed or authorized by them. Failure to comply with these conditions nullifies the contract, rendering it void and unenforceable. Additionally, the right to catch and carry away fish, being a 'profit a prendre', is considered immovable property and must be transferred by a registered instrument. Since the settlement was not effected by a registered instrument, respondent No. 1 had no enforceable right, title, or interest. Consequently, the writ petition was misconceived and should have been dismissed. Re: Contention No. 2: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable in this case. Respondent No. 1 neither deposited the required amount for the execution of the lease agreement nor was any 'Parwana' issued to him. The High Court rejected his plea regarding investments made based on the Government's order. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the Government in the exercise of its sovereign legislative and executive functions. The case cited by respondent No. 1, Union of India & Ors. v. M/s Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., was distinguishable as it involved enforcing compliance with an obligation under an Export Promotion Scheme, not a contractual right. Re: Contention No. 3: A writ of mandamus can only be granted where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and a failure to discharge that duty. In this case, respondent No. 1 did not show any statute or rule imposing a duty on respondents 2 to 4, which they failed to perform. The obligation sought to be enforced was contractual and not binding or enforceable. Therefore, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the High Court was not competent to issue the same. Relief Granted: The appeal was allowed concerning the year 1977-78. The Government was permitted to grant fishery rights to the appellant in conformity with its policy and procedure, provided the appellant fulfilled the conditions. If the Government settled the Jalkar with the appellant or another Fisherman Society, it was to refund respondent No. 1 a proportionate amount of the Jamma deposited for the year 1977-78 based on section 70 of the Contract Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court overruled the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal for the year 1977-78 and leaving it open for the Government to grant fishery rights to the appellant in accordance with its policy. There was no order as to costs.
|
