The Allahabad High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a fisheries contractor challenging the cancellation of a fisheries lease in Uttar Pradesh, holding that the dispute involves contested facts arising from a contractual agreement and should be decided through arbitration rather than in writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Netra Pal Singh challenged orders issued by the UP Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, which cancelled his fisheries lease for the Sharda Sagar Reservoir in Pilibhit. The Corporation also forfeited the security deposit, demanded recovery of alleged outstanding dues, and initiated steps to invoke the bank guarantee.
The petitioner argued that although the tender advertised a reservoir area of 6,880 hectares, a substantial portion was either located within the core area of the Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, unavailable for fishing, or otherwise unsuitable. According to him, this significantly reduced the usable area and affected his ability to fulfil the financial obligations under the lease.
The Corporation, however, maintained that the agreement had been executed on an "as-is-where-is" basis and that the contractor had defaulted on payment of instalments despite repeated notices. It also argued that the agreement contained an arbitration clause and that the dispute could not be decided in writ proceedings.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench noted that the petitioner's claim regarding the shortage of the fishing area appeared to have some basis. However, it also observed that the contractor had continued fishing for about thirteen months over a substantial portion of the reservoir and that issues such as the actual usable area, income earned, payments made, and liability under the agreement required detailed evidence.
The bench observed,
"These are disputed questions of fact, which require the parties to adduce evidence... and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing contractual disputes, the High Court held that where an arbitration mechanism exists and factual controversies require evidence, the writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within six weeks. The Court also directed that the interim protection earlier granted against the cancellation and recovery orders would continue during this six-week period and would automatically lapse thereafter if arbitration was not pursued.
It clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on whether either party had breached the lease agreement, leaving all issues open for determination by the arbitral forum.
Case Details
Case Title: Netra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 35283 of 2024
Judge: Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
