P L D 1969 Dacca 644 (PLP)

SIDDIKY, C. J.‑This Rule was obtained by the Nawabganj Thana Fishermen Co‑operative Society Limited with a prayer for a declaration that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan dated 12‑4‑1968 as communicated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev.), Rajshahi, by Memo. No. 3163‑S.A., dated 25‑4‑1968 has been made without any lawful authority. The petitioner also prayed for an injunction which was granted at the time of issuance of the Rule nisi. The petitioner's case is that it was a lessee for the year 1370 to 1374 B.S. in respect of a fishery called the Mankut Jafarabad Jalkar, in the Nawabganj Sub‑Division of the Rajshahi District. The petitioner applied for lease for the year 1375 B.S. and this application was recommended for acceptance by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rajshahi to the Board of Revenue, Dacca. The Board of Revenue approved the settlement of the fishery for the year 1375 B.S. by its Memo. No. 223‑1I/68 S.M., dated 21‑3‑1968, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have been informed about the Board's Memo. No. 223‑S.M., dated 26‑3‑68 intimating that the settlement of the fishery with the petitioner had been stayed at the instance of one Abu Bakkar Siddique. On receipt of this information, the petitioner through its Officers, enquired and learnt that the said Abu Bakkar Siddique was a lessee in respect of the said fishery for the year 1366 B.S. and had sued the Government of East Pakistan for not putting him into possession of the same in the year 1366 B.S. for 194 days which caused certain loss to him. The Government settled the suit with him on condition that he will pay a sum of rupees sixteen thousand and odd as premium for the year 1375 B.S. and the Government will not refund any portion of the premium paid by the said Abu Bakkar Siddique for the year 1366 B.S. and that he will not be entitled to any costs of the suit either and the fishery will be settled with him for 1375 B.S. It is said that the Government by its Memo. No. 287‑195/62‑S.M., dated 12‑4‑68 settled the fishery with the said Abu Bakkar Siddique for the year 1375 B.S. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the Board of Revenue could not cancel the settlement made in its favour for the year, 1375 B.S. and this cancellation and order of settlement of the fishery for the year 1375 B.S. with Abu Bakkar Siddique are without any legal authority. The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are Member, Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan ; Secretary, ‑ Revenue Department, Government of East Pakistan ; Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan ; Additional Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan ; Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi and Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rajshahi and the respondent No. 7 is the aforesaid Abu Bakkar Siddique. All the respondents appear and file affidavits‑in- opposition. The facts in the two affidavits‑in‑opposition of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and respondent No. 7 are more or less the same. In the affidavit‑in‑opposition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 which has been affirmed by one Md. Amir Ali, Section Officer, Board of Revenue, Government of East Pakistan states, inter alia, that at no point of time the Board of Revenue had intimated the acceptance of the proposal of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Rajshahi with regard to the settlement of the fishery with the petitioner for the year 1375 B.S. to the petitioner. Memo. No. 223‑II/68‑S.M., dated 21‑3‑68 was addressed by the Board of Revenue to the Deputy Commissioner Rajshahi and the same was not communicated to the petitioner nor the petitioner was at any point of tine informed about the contents of the said Memo. It is further stated that pursuant to the said Memo. dated 21‑3‑68 no document of lease was ever prepared or executed between the Board of Revenue or the Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi and the petitioner. The allega tion of the petitioner that it was informed about the Board's Memo. dated 26‑3‑68 has been categorically denied by the respondents. In fine it is the case of the respondents that the correspondences made by the Board of Revenue with the Deputy Commissioner were secret and made in the usual course of business between the two Departments of the Government and the same had nothing to do with the petitioner in so far as intimating it about what the decision of the Board was. From these it is contended by the learned Advocate‑General appearing for the respondents that there was no settlement of the fishery made for the year 1375 B.S. in favour of the petitioner nor any right had accrued in the petitioner by the internal correspond ences between the Board of Revenue and the Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi, and as such the petitioner cannot ask for either cancellation of the Memos. in question or for declaration that the said Memos. were written in violation of any rules or in excess of any legal authority. The petitioner filed an affidavit‑in‑reply in which it has reiterated the statements made by it in its application. On 22‑7‑68 an application was filed before us by Abu Bakkar Siddique, respondent No. 7, praying for vacating the order of injunction issued by us on the 27th of May 1968, while issuing the Rule nisi in this case. The grounds taken in this petition are that the petitioner‑Nawabganj Thana Fishermen Co‑operative Society Limited, was neither given lease of the fishery for the year 1375 B.S. nor it was put into possession of the said fishery by any officer of the Government. On the other hand, with the expiry of the lease of the Co‑operative Society (petitioner) in .the year 1374 B.S. the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rajshahi, after giving notice to the said petitioner Co‑operative Society, took possession of the fishery by public announcement effected through beat of drum and had put the respondent No. 7 into possession of the fishery after the Board of Revenue by its Order dated 12‑4‑1968 had directed settlement of the fishery with the respondent No. 7 Abu Bakkar Siddique. Respondent No. 7 filed the petition for vacating the order of injunction stating that he would suffer irreparable loss as he could not make arrangement for fishing because of the said order of injunction. On a perusal of the petition and hearing the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 7 Mr. M. M. G. Hafez, we directed this petition as well as the main petition to be posted in the list for hearing today. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Co operative Society, in support of the petition and have considered the case of the respondents as well. The whole case depends on the fact as to whether an settlement of the fishery was made with the petitioner Co operative Society for the year 1375 B.S. `I he petitioner has no been able to lay before us any document to show that it was informed that the fishery had been settled with it for the year 1375 B.S. nor it is the case of the petitioner that the possession of the fishery was given to it for the year, 1375 B.S. The correspondence between the Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi and the Board of Revenue is internal correspondence which does not create any actionable claim in the petitioner Co‑operative Society. Had it been the case that the petitioner was given anything in writing to show that the settlement for the year 1375 B.S. had been made with it and if it had been put into possession of the fishery then possibly the petitioner could have said that the lease could not be cancelled without giving it a prior hearing. It is not so in the present case. The logic of the petitioner that the Board's refusal to approve the recommendation of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajshahi made in favour of the petitioner and settlement of the fishery for the year 1375 B.S. with respondent No. 7 Abu Bakkar Siddique is robbing Peter to pay Paul does not, in our opinion, fit in with the facts of the present case. In conclusion, we find no legal right in the petitioner Co operative Society to ask for cancellation of any of the impugned Memos. or for the declaration that the said Memos. issued by the Board of Revenue are without any legal authority. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the application of the petitioner. We accordingly discharge this Rule but we do not make any order as to costs of this Rule. In view of our above order, no order is necessary in the application filed in Court on 22‑7‑68 for vacating the order of injunction passed on the 27th of May 1968, as with the discharge of the Rule the stay order stands vacated automatically. ABDUL HAKIM, J.‑I agree. K. B .A. Rule discharged.