Bid amount must be refunded if fishing rights are not finalized via mandatory statutory approval.

The petitioner society participated in an auction for fishing rights of Sector 9, Yamuna River, held on 29.11.2024.

Although the petitioner was the highest bidder and deposited the bid amount, a formal lease agreement was never executed because the District Magistrate did not accord statutory approval as required by paragraph 8 of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 10.01.2019.

The underlying auction notice was also embroiled in litigation before the Commissioner and the High Court.

The petitioner sought a refund of the bid amount, but the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Hamirpur, rejected the request via order dated 15.12.2025.

The rejection was based on a report alleging that, following local tradition, the petitioner had already exercised fishing rights/sublet the area despite the lack of formal approval.

Paragraph 8 of the Government Order dated 10th January, 2019, which mandates that the District Magistrate must accord approval and a formal lease deed must be executed before fishing rights are settled

The administrative law principle that when the law prescribes a specific procedure for an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all, as established in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor

State of U.P. v. Singara Singh and the three-judge Bench decision in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & others, which held that statutory authorities must act within the "four-corners" of the statute

The Court reasoned that the approval of the District Magistrate under the 2019 G.O. is a "condition precedent" and not an empty formality; without it, no enforceable legal right vested in the petitioner

The Court rejected the State's argument that "local tradition" allowed fishing upon being declared the highest bidder, holding that no tradition can legitimize an action that lacks the sanctity of law

The Court observed that if the petitioner fished without a lease, it constituted "theft of state property," and the authorities' failure to lodge a report indicated either connivance or negligence

Since the lease rights never "crystallized" due to the absence of DM approval, the State had no authority to withhold the bid amount, as doing so would constitute "unjust enrichment"

The High Court quashed the SDO’s order dated 15.12.2025 and issued a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to refund the bid amount to the petitioner forthwith.

The Court reserved the State’s liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies or penal action if concrete evidence of unauthorized fishing exists