HIGK COURTQF JUD1CATURE AT BiLASPUR. CHHATTtSGARH SiNGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK. Cj. WP.IT PETITION N0. 2029 OF 2004. PETITIONE Smt. Jaitrinbai Dheamsr, aged about 72 ysars, wldow of Late Jhagroo Dheamar, President-Macfthnua Swa Sahsysia •Samlti, G.'am - Dhanora; Tehs" and Distt. Durg (ChhaSisgarh) 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattssgarh, through, the Secretary, Department of Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Dsu Ka'yan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgam. The Director (Panchayat), Chhatlisciarh, Raipur. Ths Janpad Panchayat, Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhaitisgarh) Ths Chief Executive Ofncer, Janpad Panchayat- Durg, D'stt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Jai Laxmi Machhua Sahkari Samiti, fhrough : Sts President viSiage - Dhanora, Distt. Durg (C-hhamsgarh) The Fisheries 'nspector, Dhanora, DisB. n>=r^ fr^n\ ^\s/ Es'sssnt Smt. Fouzia Mirzajearned counsei for ths pefitione'. Shri Utkarsh Verma, iearned Dy. G.A. for respondents 1,2 and 6. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.5. (Passed on 1st May, 20QS) In fhis writ pstitlon, ths vaiidity of th3 action of the Janpad Panchayat, Durg, the 3 respondent herein, in granting fishing "ghts in favour of. the Jaj Laxmi Machhuva Sahkari Samifj, the 5 respondent herein, is calied in question. One Punit Ram was the Panch of 3 respondsnt-Panchayat and at the same tirns he >,vas aiso the President of the 5 respondent-Samifi which Is a co-operative Society registersd under Chhattlsgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1S60. It sppears that in -%- n'lrfflianffi nf -ha nntiflcstinn Nn F-11/7/3R/n7/9SR/IVs riaterf 74 n3 ?nf jw'io S S'usdl E'U''S: ''i^i -U'S t ii\<'V; >l>/Cti;is/t i t'ks>w . ; " i U ^i •h>iWf'uti—rutlu>'>^f E'WB 'i^<rtti>C?<uti ^-'^.U'ur.^-UWwi' Issued by ths 3"" respondent cailing for appiications for grant of fishing right, ihe 5 respondent-society and certain others appiied for the grant. The 3'° respondent-Janpad Panchayat, having noticed thaf the 5"" respondent-society falls '.vsthin the prsferred category of appiicanis, granted the fishlng rlght in favour of the 5' respondent-society by its oi-der dated 08.10.2002 for a Deriod of 7 years. Ths .oetltloner hereir. is the Prssident of Machh Swa Sahayats Sarrijti. Bsing aggrieved by the above action of the 3 respondent-Janpad Panchayat, she prsferred an appeai to She Coiiector, Durg Dtstrict. The Coiiector, Durg Distnct having opined that the grant of fishing right in favour of the 5'" respondenf-soclety was not in accordance with ruies and guideiines issued by the Government from tims to time set aside ths grant by his ordsr dated 25.02.2003. Feeiing aggrieved by the above order of the Coiiecto:', Durg, the 51" rsspondent herein, preferred Revision No.S5/A-89/02-03 to the Director (Panchayat), the 2 respondent herein. The D'rector by his order dated 18.05.2004 aliowed the revision and set aside the ordsr of the Coilector dated 25.02.2003. Hence, thls w'rit petition. (2) Heard the ieamed counsel for the parfies. Smt. Fouzia Mirza appearing for ths petitionsr would contend thaf flshing right granted to the 5 respondent-cooperative society is ex facie iilegal and vioiative of the provisions of Section 1 00 of the Chhattlsgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (for short ' the Adhiniyam'). Elaborating the contention, the Isarned counssi for the petitloner wouid contend thai as on the date of the grant of fishing rjght in favour o'f the 5L" respondent-socieh', its President, nameiy, Punit Ram was a Panch of the 3 respondent-Janpad ~5* -3>- Panchayat and therefore, the bsr enacted in Section 100 vras attracted. Alternativsiy, she would contend thaf the Collectoi-, Durg District in his order dated 25.02.2003 held that ths grant of fishing right made In favoar of » •;/1 respondent was even otherwlse invaiid inasmuch as it was granted in vioiation of ruies, norms and guideiines issued by the Govemment from time to tlme and this ground stated by the Coilector, Durg was not at ail appreciated by the 2 respondent vi/hiie aliowing the revislon filed by the 5 respondent-society. On the other hand, iearned counsei appearing for the State authorities as we!i as the 5 respondent wouid subrnit that the bar contained In Section 100 of Adhiniyam has no application to the facts or this case, for, !t is not that Punit Ram the then Presldent of the 5 respondent-cooperative society under any contract with the 3 respondent-Janpad Panchayat had acquired any interesS or right; that the 5 respondent-cooperative society acquiring a right or interesf under the contract entered into befween the 3 respondent and the 5L" respondent-cooperatEve couid not be equated to a contract beto/een Punit Ram and the 3 respondent-Panchayat. It was also pointed out that under Section 36 cf Adhiniyarri there Is no bar for Janpad Panchyat So become an office-bearer or member of the cooperative society and iooking from that angie aiso, fhe grant made by the 3 respondent in favour of the 5 respondent-cooperative sociefry couid not be fauited wlth and that grant cannot be nullified only on- the ground that one of the members or the office bearers among 30 tota! members of the :th rd respondent happened to be a Panch ofthe 3'" respondsnt-Panchayat iso. (3) Having heard the isarned counsei for the parties, i am of the considered opinion that it Is not a fst case for the Court to step in under Article 226 of the C-onstituSion and nuiiify the grant made by the 3 respondent-Janpad Panchayat in favour of the 5 respondent-cooperative society. Section 100 of the Adhinlyam provides that if a member or office bearer or servant of Panchayat knowingiy acquirss dirsctiy or indirectiy any personal share or interest ( emphasis supplied) in any contract or ernpioyment v/lth, by or on behalf of a Panchayat without the sanctlon of or permission of the prescribed authority, he shali be deemed to have commltted an offence under Section 168 of the indian Penal Code,1868. What is prohibited under SecSion 100 of Adhiniyam is that a member or offic®bearer or sei-vant of the Janpad Panchayat uncier any contract or arrangement is not entlUed to acquire either dtrect!y or indireetly any interest or right. it is nobody's case that under any contract between the 3 respondent Janpad Panchayat and Punit Ram, the then President of the 5 respondent-cooperative society, he had acquired any persona! shars or interest and , therefore, he is ilable to be punished as envisagsd under Section 100 of the Adhirilyam. No other provisions of Adhiniyam was brought to my notice by the iearned counse! for the petitioner which prohibits the Janpad Panchayat from parting with its iargesse in favour of any cooperative society or any other society, if an office bearer or a member of such society happened to be s merrsbsr or office bearer of the Janpaa' Panchayat aiso. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Sectson 1DO of the Adhiniyam are of no he!p to the pstitioners to contend that since Punit Ram. at the relevant coint of time. was the President of the 5 respondent-cooperative society, the 3 respondent-.Janpad Panchayat ought not to have granted fishing right in favour of the 51" -s^:'^''1*'""''''"":''^"1' -Ll- respondenf-cooperative society. At this stage itself, st needs to be noticed that a cooperative society registered under the provisions of ths Chhaftisgarh Cooperative Societies AcS, 1960 has a distinct anci separate legai entity than the personality of the members constltutino it. The personaSity of the cooperative society cannot be equated wifh that of the members constituting it. Looking from Shat angle also, the bar contained in Section 100 of Adhiniyam couid not be applied to ths facts of this case. (4) Of course, in the impugned order, the 2" respondent quite curiousiy has stated that the grant made in the favour of the 5 respondent-cooperstsve society is in accordance with the norms and guidelines contalned in the Government Orde' dated 24.03.2003 compietely forgettlng the faci that the nshlng right was granted by ths 3'" respondent in favour of the 5 respondent-cooperative society weii before that order was issued by the Government, that is to say, on 08.1D.2002 stseif. Aithough, it was vaguely contended before me by the learned counsei for the petitioner that the grant made in favour of the 51"' rsspondsnt even otherwise, is iiiegai inasmuch as jt was grantsd in violation of the ruies, norms and guideiines, the iearned counsel was not in a position to pinpomt what are those norms, rules and reguiatlons v.'hich havs been vioiated. Above a!S, another cireumstance which weighs with the Court in the decision-making is the facS that though this writ petition was filed in the year 2004, no interim order was grantsd. Resultantly, the 5 respondent-cooperative society has been expioiting the fishing right granted to it as far back as on 05.08.2002 and therefore, it may not be appropriate at this stage to interfere with that right alreadsLexDlaiind-*^" ^\-n' s'- (5) !n the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are however directed to bear their respective costs in this writ petition. Sd/- Chiefjustice Judge Bl!l la s