1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5293 OF 2009 (Dattatray Matsya Palan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Zilla Parishad and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. N.P. Hiwse, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri S. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.4. -------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 2, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner Society have challenged an allotment of tank for fishing purpose to respondent no.3 Society. They have also prayed for direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to allow them to carry on fishing operation on the basis of the agreement dated 24/4/2008 that was 2 executed between the petitioner Society and respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner Society have further prayed for injunction against respondent no.3 restraining them from carrying on fishing till disposal of the writ petition. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the agreement dated 24/4/2008 and submitted that respondent nos.1 and 2 had executed this agreement for a period of five years and before completion of this period, they have allotted the tank at village Surgaon to respondent no.3 for fishing. Petitioner are based in the village Chapti and they operate the tank in the said village. Our attention was invited to the bye laws of the petitioner Society, which clearly stipulate that if any other Society in the village Surgaon is registered, area of operation of the new Society, i.e. the tank in the village Surgaon, will be deleted from the area of operation of the petitioner's Society. In view thereof, it was pointed out that when the tank in the village Surgaon was auctioned on 10/7/2009, the petitioner Society did not participate in the auction 3 and that they stopped fishing from 12/6/2009. Admittedly, respondent no.3 Society started fishing from 26/7/2009. It appears that the petitioner have filed another writ petition in this Court, namely, Writ Petition No.1526/2009 wherein they have challenged registration of respondent no.3 Society and prayed for direction to respondent no.1 to delete the tank from the operational field of respondent no.3 Society. We are informed that that petition is pending for hearing. Keeping that in view and considering that the petitioner Society even did not participate in the auction process nor did they object to the auction held on 10/7/2009 and allotment of the tank to respondent no.3 till they filed the present petition after more than four months, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj