Siagw ugaaa W W IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4018 j 20Q4 PETITIONER : Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Fiah Federation Corporation Ltd. (A Society registered under the C.G‘ Cooperative Societies Act, 1960) Through its President Shri Indulal Niahad $! o Late B. R. Nishad, Aged about 58 years, R] o Mahadev Ghat Road, Village — Raipur (C.G.) —Versus — RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattiagarh, Through Principal Secretary, Department, of Fisheries, Mantraléya, D. K. S. Bhawan Shastri Chowk, Raipur {C.G.). Secretary, Department of Agriculmre(Cooperative) , Mantralaya, D.K.$. Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). Eireetor Fieheriea, Telibandhé, Raipur (C.G.). Regiettar, Couperative Societiea, State of C.Gr., Labhandi, Raipur C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA! FOR ISSUMCE OF A SUITAELE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN TI-IE MATTER. Details of the petition. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As’per Cause title. i @ XI—HC—22 mam WW WHW‘EH i E r r 1 16-6-2005 Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, coun eel for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Agrawal. Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. The petitioner Federation re Act, 1960, through its President induiai Nishad has preferred this writ petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of india with a orayer for quashment of order dated ?-10-2004 (Annexure F the State of Chhattisgarh after exaruning the working of Federatron decided to take back the six reservoirs from the petitioner and handcver the same to the Agricultural Bepartment for leasing 1e Madhya Prad'esh Rajya Matsya Vikas r Nigam bv the erstwhile State of M ' However later on under section 3 i Vikas Nigam Adhmiyam 1979 the said Corporation was lrqurdated and the Corporation were tranaferred to the MP. i 31-7-1999 (Annexure P-S), including the Sew & liabilities vesting in the Fishing Federation vide order date: employees of the Corporation. Brief facts ieading to tiling olf this writ petition are that as evident from i rtain reservoirs were constructed by the out the same on auction basis These six . reservoirs were handed over to t adhya Pradesh in the years; 1,988.“& 1996. 3 of the Madhya" Praaesh (Rajya) Matsya IKI ‘lrrigation Department of the er decided that those reservoirs 's Department Thereafter vide ord HMS 164996 (Annexure P—e) S‘ Sager 8; Tanduia reservorrs were h nded over to the M P Raiya Matsya Vikas Nrgam Vrcle order dated 31 ~7-1 99 (Annexure P-5) the said Corporation was liquidated by the State of Madhya Eradesh, Fisheries Department exerolsrng power under Section 33 of the M. le State of Madhya Pradesh and it was ouid be handed over to the Fisheries rs dated 31-12-1988 (Annexure P-3) and ndoor Hasdeo Bango Kodar Manohar i'i ‘(Rajya) ‘ Matsya Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam, gAnnexure R-1 dated 10-6-1982 c: e rgistered under the Co—operativewrSocieties a, -22), whereby the Frshenes Department of g » .V i XI—HC-22 gammamwm §$§ mam mm mm€%a m _2v; WW&W‘M ' %m%rr3n%srr WW 19?9, and an the assets & !iabilities of the Corporation were transferred to the MP. Fish Federation, and powers which were vesting in the Corporation were given to Fish Federatibn. These six reservoirs were given on Iease by the Fish Federation for a period of hve years expiring on 15!“ June, 20GB. However, in 1 the mean time, under the M.P. 'tate Reorganisation Act. 2000, the State of s Chhattisgarh came into existenc as a result of which a separate Fish Federation for the State of Chhatti arh was formed as per the provisions of the i MP. Sahakari Society (Punargathan Aur Nirman) Adhiniyam, 2000. Vide , Annexure P-7 a scheme was fram ci. As per the provisions of clause 5.2 of the scheme since there was no ei cted Director available for the State of :i ‘ Chhattisgarh and there was only one delegate namely Shyamlai Nished of ‘1 Raipur, it was made clear that in given situation it was not possibie to follow the procedure for the State of Chh ttisgarh as, adopted by the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, it was decided hat byythe Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ‘ Madhya Pradesh, or by any other competent Ofhcer, an Officer in-charge will f be nominated or the Board of Directors of Government oflicils wili be y constituted for a period of one yea or till the new Board of Directors is elected. Accordingly, an Officer ln-charge s appointed. ‘The said Officer ln-charge vide his letter dated 2-5-2003 ( nnexure P-9) wrote a letter to the Chief $ecretary and requested that sine the lease of these reservoirs is going to expire on 15-6-2003, a Committee e constituted for entering into a contract for future. A reminder was also sent o 9-6-2003 (Annexure P-t O). The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattlsgar , vide order dated 10-7-2003 (Annexure P- 11) constituted Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of indulal Nishad with eight other members, for a p‘e od of one year or till the elections are held. The Fisheries Department of the S te Government vide order dated 6-1 0-2003 (Annexure R-8) took a decision that these six reservoirs be allowed to be i s)// Xi‘HC-22 mam Wm mmw wtth conditions that the Fish Fede1atlon itseif win manage the fishing activities, the reservours shaii not be hands over to any contractor the fishing activities are to be conducted through the f hermen so that the fshermen get maXImum benefts and the Fish Federation shall pay royaity of Rs 4l- per Kg to the i Fisheries Department Clause 2 of the said decision further envisages that from *ime to time a rewew wuii be anducted regarding the actwtties cf Fish =ederatlon Uitimately, the impug ed order Annexure P-22 came to be passed by the Fisheries Department of he State of Chha‘tisgarh, which Is under challenge. \ l have heard Mr. Rajeev S rivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, respondente. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, iea ned coun‘se! for the petitioner argued that these six reservoirs were handed ver to the erstwhile Corporation under the statutory power i.e. Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1979, vide Annexure P—5, therefore, now the State Govern ent is not entitled to take back the said reservoirs through an administraive order. Further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that th order impugned is factually incorrect, and his third attack is on the ground at in this case principles of natural justice have been violated. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Agrawai, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that this writ petition i misconceived for the reason that these reservoirs were never given to th Corporation with absolute right and these reservoirs were given to the Corpo tion on royalty basis. tale further submitted that these reservoirs were not given under any statutory power or under Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1979. T i l se reservoirs were simpiy given to the managed by the Fish Federation fc r a period of one year on experimental basis learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ XI—HC~22 mammafsa r— 9‘ y~ émFanww Corporation for their management and for fishing production with fishing rights. After coming into existence of the State of Chhattisgar’h, the State of Chhattisgarh vide its poiicy denision (Annexure R-S). the Cabinet took a ‘ &ecisian on 18-2-2003 to Eke theSe reservoirs and give them on auciian basis for fishing rights Painting out towards clause 1 4 at page 34 of the return learned Deputy Advocate Gener submitted that in this clause it ie clearly mentioned that the reservmrs wh h are under the Fish Federation shouid be transferred to the Department after expiry of the lease period and in pursuance of the said policy decision the older impugned has been passed. Learned Deputy AdVocate General further rgued that even on 28-5~2004 a meeting was convened under'the Chairmanshi of the Director, Fisheries in which Chairman lndulal Nishad and Managing Dir ctor S.A. Hussain were also present and in this meeting the working of Fi h Federation was reviewed regarding the management of these reservoirs! Minute/s of the Meeting says that the Fish Federation was not abie to mana e these reservoirs etiicientiy and on account of that there was heavy financial i es to the State Govemment regarding royalty and earning of income by the Fe eration aiso. i-le aiso invited attention of the Court towards the audit report of die Accountant Generai in which it has been mentioned that on account of the management by Fish Federation,'the State has incurred a loss of R5499? lak s of royalty. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava. ie rnedicounsei for the petitioner white inviting ‘attention of the Court towards the document Annexure R 1? argued that after taking over these six reservoirs n thing wiii be left With the Fish Federation for earning and for management of affairs of the Fish Federation He submrtted that at the time of liquidation o the Corporation all the employees were transferred to Fish Federation, n 83 employees are working with the Fish l ft XI—HC-22 mam WW WW Wma’r‘ga Pg r Federation, and the Fish Federation has no source of income to make payment to these empioyees. Having heard ieamed counsei for the'parties and having perused the reievant record, if we look into order dated 40-6-1932 (Annexure R-1) these reservoirs were constructed by t ! irrigation Depaitment. and further shows that the Irrigation Department of th erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh was not abie to manage these reservoirs i connection with fish production as such, it was decided to handover these retervoirs to the Fisheries Department on the conditions mentioned in the said or er. Thereafter, the Fisheries Department in the years 19‘88 8} 1996 handed ov r these reservoirs to the Corporation. Even though, no dooument has been paced by either of the parties showing that whether the said six reservoirs ere handed over to the Corporation with ahsoiute right or on certain terms and conditions, however, perusai of order ued by the Fisheries Department, State of Madhya Pradesh; copies of the s me were sent to the eight authorities, iast copy was sent to the Director, Fsheries Department in whioh it has been mentioned that the provision regard n9 royaity wiii continue and there wiii be no amendment; and order dated 6-10- , dated 31~7-1 999 (Annexure R-4), i 003 (Annexure R-8) issued by the Fisheries r Department, State of Chhattisgarh how that these .six reservoirs were given to the Fish Federation on royalty basi of Rs.4l- per Kg. Minutes of the Meeting in which indulai Nishad Chairman of he Fish Federation participated aiso shows that these six reservoirs are given n royalty basis and it refers about loss of royalty incurred by the State on ace unt of the fact that the Fish Federation was not able to manage these reservoir properly. Even the audit report (Annexure R-1 2) is also to this effect. Perus l of orders Annexures P-3 & P-4 whereby ’ these reservoirs were transferred t the erstwhile Corporation does not show that these reservoirs were giVen to i he Corporation with absoiutexright. These i XLHC—ZZ EW,WW WW Corporation for the purpose of pro Suction and deveiopment of fishing. Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh (Rajya) Matsya Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam. 1979, is ' reievant in ihis connection. Sub-amuse (ii) of clause 2 of Section 21 envisages Ithat the Corporation will be con tituted with the purpose of “development, conservation, management and e ploifafion of fisheries in tanks and resemirs that are taken over fmm or placed ,at their disposal by the State Government for such purposes and on such terms and conditions fhat are mutually agreed to". As has been mentioned a eve, it is evident from the documents that these reseNoirs were given to the orporation o‘n royalty basis. Therefore, i do not tind‘ any substance in the argu ent of learned counsel for the petitioner that these reservoirs were given to he Corporation with absolute fishing right without any control of the State Go rnment on these reservoirs. if we took into the policy de ision of the state of Chhattisgarh, which was taken by the Cabinet on 18-2-20 3, sub-clause (1.4) of clause 1 of the said Cabinet decision says that all t e reservoirs above 200 hectares wilt be auctioned for the purpose of tis‘nin . Clause 1.4 of the said decision (at page 34 of'the return) further envisage that the reservoirs admeasuring more than hich is with the Panchayat or the Fish Federation, shall be transferred to he Fisheries Department after expiry of the lease period. in view of this. aft r this policy decision is taken by the State Government. the State Governm nt took another decision dated 6-10-2003 (Annexure R-S) whereby on exp rimental. basis these six reservoirs were ailowed to be continued with the Fish Federation for a period of one year subject to the conditions mention in the said order on payment of royalty of Rs.4/- per Kg. Thereafter, vide im ugned order dated blow-2004 (Annexure ./ P- 200 hectares, management of ‘ l mm W 200 (/2_ W W Em has with mmeha a 6 mews feet Wit - atWstevr orders simply mention that these reservoirs were transferred to the erstwhile 22) the State Government took a'decision to withdraw these six reservoirs from Fish Federation and to give them fc r fishing rights on auction basis. Therefore, in View of the above, l do not find any iiiegaiity in the impugned order for the reason that the said six reservoirs were-initially given to the Corporation by the erstwhile of State of Madhya Pradesh on royalty basis for development, management, fishing and other activities regarding production of fish. As per the Government’s policy decision of the State of Chhattisgarh, these six reservoirs have been taken back after the expiry of lease. in the circumstances, the argument advanced by teamed oounsei for the petitioner that the re§ervoirs have been taken by administrative order is not correct, as these six reservoirs were aiso given by the State Government under administrative decision to the Co poration for management and fishing rights, and thereafter, these reservoirs re transferred to the Fish Federation on account of liquidation ofrthe Cor ration. Now, after looking to the working of Fish Federation which was not a le to manage these reservoirs properly and efhciently. that the Federation was not even able to pay royalty to the State and . continuousiy running in ioss, the Government took a poiicy decision to give these reservoirs to the parties on uction basis, which cannot be termed in any x way arbitrary or without authority. As far as the argument f teamed counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is factuaily incor ct. prima facie, it appears 30,. but when we took into the facts and examine th matter on merit as mentioned above. then i do not find any subsmnce in this a ument also. As far as the argument ad anced by learned counsei for the petitioner that principles of natural justice h ve been violated: in this argument also l do not find any substance for the rea n that the Chairman of the Fish Federation himself participated in various eetings in which/review was conducted ’5. , i i z § regarding management of these s€x reservoirs by the Fish Federation, and it is evident from Minutes of the M eting, in which the Chairman at the Fish Federation participated, that the F h Federation was not able to manage these six reservoirs efhcientiy, as a resui of which the Fish Federation was not abie to . pay the royaity as agreed upon ‘y them. A decision has been taken by the Cabinet after taking into consider ion ail the factors and even on trial basis for a period of one year vide order d ted 6-10-2003 it was decided to give these reservoirs to the Fish Federation nd during that period as per the audit report of the Accountant General and Minutes of Meeting it is evident that the Fish Federation was not ahie to mana e these reservoirs efficiently. Therefore, a- decision was taken by the Gover ment to withdraw these six reservoirs and to given them on auction basis. i Now, coming to the point ra sed by learned counsel for the petitioner that employees of the etstwhlle Cor oration Were transferred to the petitioner Federation by the State Governm nt under the liquidation order Annexure P-5 and after taking alt these reservoir e Federation has no other sufficient earning l to pay them. in this connection. appears from Annexure R-17 (Minutes of Meeting) that some meeting took lace on 8-10~2004 i.e. after issuance of the impugned order and in that me ting the Principal Secretary of Agricultural Department has suggested some ways. The Government must devise some method and take a decision renar inc these empioyees about the suggestions given by the Principal Secretary. I is expected that the Government would take a decision in respect of empioy s as per the suggestions given by the Principal SecretamAgricultural De artment, at the earliest. in the resuit, the writ petition iis and it is dismissed. Cost is m gs easy; Sdl— i L.C.BHADOO Judge t . pay saiary to these employees as the petitioner Federation wiii not be able to I XLHC-22 3am, W,m WW 2 \ c05g401§ mm. ..................... 2004 m mam Warrasr WWW WW§WW # 1g § %31f’\avan%r WW