Executive fishery rights, Article 299 compliance, and statutory duty limits defeated contract, estoppel, and mandamus claims.

Executive arrangements concerning fishery rights were held unenforceable where they did not comply with Article 299 and, on the facts, required registration to transfer a profit a prendre. The alleged settlement therefore created no binding contract or enforceable title against the State. Promissory estoppel was unavailable because no completed lease or accepted change of position was shown, and estoppel could not be used to impose an obligation contrary to law in a sovereign executive context. Mandamus also failed because no statutory duty or corresponding legal right was established; relief could not rest on an unenforceable contractual claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged settlement of fishery rights created a binding and enforceable contract so as to support relief under Article 226. (ii) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State on the facts of the case. (iii) Whether a writ of mandamus could issue in the absence of a statutory duty.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged settlement of fishery rights created a binding and enforceable contract so as to support relief under Article 226.

Analysis: A contract made in exercise of executive power must comply with Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The arrangement in question was not executed in the manner required by that provision and, therefore, did not bind the State. The right to catch and carry away fish was treated as a profit a prendre and, in the circumstances found, transfer of such right required a registered instrument. As the transaction for two years reserving yearly rent was not evidenced by registration, no enforceable title or interest arose.

Conclusion: The alleged settlement was not a valid or enforceable contract and could not sustain the claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The claim for promissory estoppel failed because no completed lease had come into existence, no parwana had been issued, and the asserted expenditure and change of position were not accepted. The Court also treated the matter as one involving the State's sovereign executive functions, in which estoppel could not be used to create a binding obligation contrary to law.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel was not available to the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether a writ of mandamus could issue in the absence of a statutory duty.

Analysis: Mandamus lies only to enforce a legal duty imposed by statute and corresponding legal right in the applicant. No statute or rule having the force of law was shown to impose the duty sought to be enforced, and the relief was founded only on an unenforceable contractual claim.

Conclusion: The writ of mandamus was not maintainable on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the respondent had no enforceable contractual right, no basis for promissory estoppel, and no entitlement to mandamus; the judgment under challenge could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive arrangements that do not comply with Article 299 and are not supported by registration where required cannot be enforced through promissory estoppel or mandamus in the absence of a statutory duty.

---