fl L '<3T^?7 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (C} N0. •?^/Z OF 2009 ^^ELI PETITIONER ^I^3- ^-^ x ^ RESPQNDENTS Harijan Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Malkharouda, (Regd. No. 118/1990), through President, Ghasiyaram Banjare Son of Shri Dujram Banjare, aged about 49 years, resident of Village, Post, Police Station and Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh: the Secretary, Agriculture (Fisheries Department) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). rf'. 2. The Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). •' _. ---.-.. -. . . 3. The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Janjgir-Champa (C.G-). 4. Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), through the Chief Executive Officer. 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). '^:'?-^'-i^'-'''ffltfs^'W^~^'^:' 1 6. Anusuchit Jati Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sahkari Samiti, Malkharouda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), through President Kantibai, aged about 35 years Wife of Dhaniram, Resident of Malkharouda, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?s Rrt?s;^^a^ :;:'®'if HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.7012 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Harijan Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocateforthe petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondents No.4&5. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.6. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 1 day of December, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the resolution dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No-4 Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, and the order dated 20-11-2009 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the respondent No.5 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda, by which the lease for piscicullture has been granted in favour ofthe respondent No.6. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act. On 17-6-2009 the Janpad Panchayat invited applications from the interested societies for allotment of 'Bandhwa Jalashya' for pisciculture. The petitioner submitted his application 26-6-2009 along with others. The Agriculture Committee of the Janpad Panchayat allotted the pond/tank in question to the respondent No.6 on 20-8-2009 without considering the case of the petitioner and without following the directions and the policy as well as guidelines ofthe State Government. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the petitioner raised an objection before the Assistant Director, Fisheries on 31-8-2009. The Assistant Director, Fisheries directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat to grant lease ;n accordance with the policy framed by the State Government and canceiled the lease granted in favour of the respondent No.6 vide order^dated 1-9- 2009. The Agriculture Committee of the Janpad Panchayat 6. 7. convened its meeting and granted the lease for pisciculture in favour ofthe respondent No.6 on 16-11-2009, again. Thereagainst, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent authorities, which is still pending consideration. In the meantime, the respondent No.5 by order dated 20-11-2009 passed the allotment order in favour of the respondent No.6. Thus, thjs petition. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that while granting the lease of pisciculture in favour of the respondent No.6 the respondent authorities have not at all followed the guidelines and policy framed by the State Government. The respondent No.6 is not a duly registered society. The priority should be given to the registered society, being the old society, which is functioning within the circle of 8 kms. from the pond/ tank in question. The impugned resolution has been passed without obtaining the recommendation of the Fisheries Inspector, which is mandatory before granting the lease. Thus, the impugned resolution dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1) as well as the order dated 20-11-2009 (Annexure - P/2) may be quashed. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, on the basis of para 11 of the return dated 31-5-2010, submits that the allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No.6 was not as per the policy. Shri Ahkhitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 & 5, submits that there are certain complaints against the petitioner society, as is evident from Annexure - R4/1. After enquiring the veracity of the complaints, it was found that the petitipner society has committed financial irregularities. Therefore, the petitioner society was not entitled to grant ofr lease for pisciculture. The petition may be dismissed, accordingly. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, adapted the submission made by the respondents No.4 & 5 and further submits that the impugned resolution as well as the order have rightty been passed in favour of the respondent No.6 and the same do not warrant any interference ofthis Court. 1 have heard learned. counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ^@s;^i?^^^S;lc;?^JE^'i%tiS;J®^EiS:;^iic»S^(-^:^^;^^ •'••S.^'.'iSl'Si:, -€ Gowri 10. The respondents No.4 & 5. in their reply submitted that thi application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner society had committed financial irregularities earlier. 11. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture (Fisheries), in his affidavit dated 24-11-2010, stated that there is no provision in the current fisheries policy of the State Government to disqualify a person for subsequent tenure, if he was found to have committed irregularity earlier. Thus, the decision of the respondents No.4 & 5 was not in accordance with the fisheries policy. It is accordingly held that non-consideration of the application of the petitioner was not in accordance with the existing fisheries policy. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the resolution dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1) as well as the order dated 20-11-2009 (Annexure - P/2) allotting fishing rights to the respondent No.6 are quashed. The respondents No.4 & 5 are directed to consider the application of the petitioner as well as other applicants including the application of the respondent No.6 afresh for grant of allotment of fishing right on 'Bandhwa Jalashya' in accordance with the fisheries policy of the State Government. 13. It is made clearthat before taking decision, the respondents No.4 & 5 are directed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.6 and other similarly situated applicants. It is further made clear that no fresh application. shall be entertained, as fhe respondents No.4 & 5 have to consider the existing applications, in accordance with law for allotting the fishing rights. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. ?-——--—----—-__ ;1 !1 SdA j Satish K. Agnihotri