P ^- l-esTS / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ^ WRIT PETITION ^__ N0. ^Qiyo /20^ PETITIONER: e^ ./•^y ^'^ RESPONDENTS: '^&e-i tWMf^ w^^~ lw ». ^l^ '^i [atsya Sahkari Prathmic Samiti Maryadit, Kopara, a Co-operative Society regisfered under Chhattisgarh Co-operative society Act, 1960, registration No. 80, through its President, Shri Shyam Lal Nishad, S/o Shri Dashrath Lal Nishad, aged 53 years, Occupation- Fisherman, R/o Village Kopara, Block Fingeshwar, District- Raipur (C.G.) Vs. 1. *Sate of Chhattisgarh, through its secretary, Department , of Fisheries, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Panchayat, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Collector, Gariyaband, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Gram Panchayat, fhrough its Sarpanch, Village-Kopara, Block Fingeshwar, District-Raipur, h-hattisgarh 5. Machhua Samhu, through its President Prem Lal Dhiwar, R/o Village Kopara, Block Fingeswar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh K!» WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE^226/227 OF THE •^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA c H!GH_CQURT(;>FCJ-IHATriSGARHATBILASPUR WRITPETn-IONCCVNo. 2900 6f 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS IVIatsya SahRari Prathnile Samiti Maryadit,Kopara. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarhS Others. WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE227'OFTHEGONSTIITUT'IONOF INDIA '.:: i' ' :":;.::",/ •• SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. L~^: Present: iShri Rajeev SMrirastava, with Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates ftirthe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, f?anel Lawyer for the State. Shri Rakesh-Thakyr,Advocatefpr^heresponcientNo.4. Shri Shashank ThaKur, on behalf of P. Bharat, Advocate for the respondentNo.5. [ ORDERfORAU , (Passed on 21 stday ofOctobeF, 201 Q) 1, Heard leamed counselforthe parties. 2. By;thlispetition,tWepetitioriMTS^ksto^a 10J 2.2008 (ARnie)(Sre^%1)^ DirectorPanchayaf,arisingQutof6rderdated 27.12:2007" gassed by the respondent No.3 - Additional Collector, Gariyalaand,! RSaipyr, .arisingoutoTresolutiondatecl 08/11 ?2006. l 3. The[ factsi, in ntltshell, are 'that on 12^38/200^; a meeting or respQndent No^ was cSlled, wherein a'lresolution wasr^ss^d unanimouslyfhattl^w^erplinds^^^ ru!es of tfie State Govemment. j Accs&rclingly, on 16l1;0?2Q06|jtiwas decided to lease out six v^er pohds (i^^ to the petiB^^ water poncis^^a^ t6 aiTOtt^ sc^iety and^^^to •|i*^:fi'?S;U^S^ 9K- 't--z, 4. 5. 6. 2 (talab) to the respondent No.5. Subsequently, byTesofattSh dated itwas decided to lease out all the water ponds (talak) to th6 respohdent No.5. Being aggrieved by the said resoluliQ,ii< dated 08/11 /2006 the petitioner preferred a revision before the; respondent No.3 on the ground that the watec ponds (talab) have been leased out contrary to the rules framed by the State Government andthe respondentNo.4 has no authority to passthe resolution dated 08/1'1/2006. Therevision was dismissed by order dated 27712/2007. Thereagajnst, the petitioner preferred a revision, before the respondent No.2,which was also dismissed vide order dated 10/12/2008 onthegroundthatthe second revision agalnst the order passed by the respondent No.3 is not maintainable. Thus, this petition. According to the le&rned counsel for the pefitioner, pursuant to the resolution, no specific order of allotment of tank on |eas& to the respondent No.5, has been passed. The resolution cannot be subjected to Judicial review, as it is simple minutes of the proceedings. This Court, in KhatbadanSingh Parifiar v. State ofC.G.&Others', held that 'resolution' is an expression of the opinion of the members who havecomeout to a unanimous conclusion but the 'resolution'byitself doesnot have tneforceoflaw. I The Supreme Court, in A/ew /ncf/a Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nuslf NevilleWadia & Anr. , held that the resoiutions are meregujdelines and not controlled bythe statutoryprovisions. • Eie. ailK i;l.; IW.P.(S) Np. 2115of2009, decided on 19.03.2010. 2008 AIR SGW 208 •^^•=f ^^-HS^; ff^ 3 SSf^ VfW—. ,.S£ 7. 8. 9. 10. lntMeinstantc^e,resolutiondated8.11.200S--wa^chal|enged befbre the Additibnal Collector, Gariyaband, in revision case No. 04/121/2007-08, vjllage - Kopra, by the petitioner. The Additional Collector, without examining the facts asto whether resolution which was not follcw/ed by tfte proper order, coyld be subjeet matter ofchallenge In revision, when itiswell settled prinGiples of iaw that the revision By itselfdoes not haye the force oflavi/, unless itisfbllowedbytheproperfbrmalorder. Thereafter, the second revision vyas preferred before the Birector, Panchayat Chhatfisgarh against the orderdated 27.12.2007 passed by the Additiorial Collector, Gariyaband (Annexisire P-2), whichwas dismissed bythe Director, Panehayat, ontbeground of maintainability, as second revision was not m^intainable by impugned orderdated 10.12.2008. As held above thatthe resolution byitselfidoes not haveithe force of|aw. Jsnotclearwhetherttiea|lotmentofppnds(talab5!wason account'6f^anyspeGil1elorder,pu^anttoresolution.Tl3;e;prcler dated 27.12,200^ ^nexttfeP^)^passedbytte^ CollectorandfyrtheroFderdated 10.12.2008 (Arinexure P-1) passed by the Director, Panchayat are iquaslTed on a|simple grounclthat no reyisiohwasmaintainableagairjsttheresoli.llion. Thus, applying weil settted principles of tawjto.the facts| of ttijejcase; the petition is allowed and both the orders passed; by: the authorities beloW are quashed.. No orderastb costs, ;ashok Sd/- SafefaK.Agnih"trl Judge m.