2008 (2) TMI 881 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioner lacks standing to challenge fishery rights allotment based on entitlement proof. Only named entity can contest.

BIRENDRA KUMAR PODDAR @BIRENDRA PODDAR Versus GHANSHYAM MANDAL

The High Court found that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the allotment of fishery rights as he could not prove his entitlement to the ... - Issues involved: The issue involves the locus standi of the petitioner in challenging the allotment of fishery rights and the validity of the allotment made in favor of the respondent.Issue 1: Locus Standi of the Petitioner The petitioner, Ghanshyam Mandal, claimed to have been allotted fishery rights for specific plots but failed to establish his right as per the document produced. The High Court found that the disputed plots were not allotted to the petitioner, rendering him without locus to challenge the allotment made in favor of a third party. The respondent no. 7, the appellant, challenged the identity of the plots and presented evidence that the plots had not been transferred to the Fishery Department. The Court concluded that the petitioner lacked standing to dispute the allotment and dismissed the writ petition.Issue 2: Validity of Allotment The Court examined the Parwana issued for the relevant period and noted that it was in favor of a different entity, not the petitioner. The entity to whom the Parwana was issued did not challenge the allotment made in favor of the appellant. The Court emphasized that only the entity mentioned in the Parwana could have raised grievances regarding the allotment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no standing to challenge the allotment.Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.