^^^ ^--O'^'-^P-^-^ HIGH COJJRT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ. PETITSONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETJTSON No.2774 OF 2005 1. Ghasiram S/o LaNSahu, Aged about 40 years 2. Mankunwar, S/o Mahettar Sahu Aged about 60 years 3. Jagdish S/o Kamta Sahu Aged about 42 years 4. Tilak S/o Laldas Satnami Aged about 32 years 5. Joidhad, S/o Lakhan Rawat Aged about 35 years 6. Parsadawa, S/o Samaru, Aged about 65 years 7. Rekhabai, W/o Aaju Kurmi, Aged about 22 years All above R/o ViiEage Sankra, Tahsi! Serla, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh , Through : Secretar^, Panchayat & Gramln Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Upper Coiiector, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Gram Panchayat, SanRra, Through its Sarpanch, namety Rameshwar Dewangan S/o Shriram Dewangan, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Vill. Sankra, Tah. Beria, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. S.D.0. Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. Director of Panchayat, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) -^" 6. Bhagyashri Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Viliage Sankra, Through : its Secretary-Smt. Umabai, W/o Shivkumar Sharma, Aged about 40 years, R/o village Sankra, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Present: Shri Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. G.A. for the State/respondents 1,2, 4 and 5. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counse! for respondent No. 3. Shri Vipra Sen Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.6. ORAL ORDER (Passedon01stMay,2006) The dispute brought before the Court arises out of the action of the Gram Panchayat, Sankra, the 3rd respondent herein leasing a fishing right in the tank belonging to it. The petitioners 7 in number are individual fishermen, whereas respondent 6, namely, Bhagyashri Swayam Sahayata Samuh, is a Registered Self Help Group of fishermen. There is no dispute that between the petitioners on one hand and the S respondent - Group on the other hand, in terms of the norms and guidelines prevailing at the retevant point of time, the 6 respondent - Group had preference compared to the petitioners in the matter of grant of fishing rights. However, the 3 respondent, Gram Panchayat granted fishing right in favour of the petitioners overlooking the preference of the 6th respondent - Group. But, immediately after the grant of fishing right in favour of the petitioners, on a complaint lodged by ^h respondent - Group that it ought to have been granted fishing right, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Beria and in that enquiry it was found that three members of the 6 respondent - Group were defaulters and in that view of the matter •j1'.^' -3- the decision which was already taken by the 3 respondent to grant fishing right in favour of the petitioners was not interfered with. When the matter stood thus, the 6th respondent - Group, with considerabie deiay preferred an appeal to the Sub Dsvisional Offlcer, Saja, District Durg, the 4 respondent herein cailing in question the vaiidity of the order of the 3 respondent in granting fishlng right in favour of the petitloners aiong with an appiication to condone the delay in filingthe appeal. The 4th respondent having opined that no suffident cause is shown for condoning the delay rejected the application for condoning the delay and consequently dismlssed the appeal preferred by the S respondent, by hss order dated 16-07-2004. Feeiing aggrieved by the above order of the 4th respondent, the 6th respondent preferred a revision under Rule 5 of C.G. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules") to the Additional Collector, Bemetara, District Durg, the 2nd respondent herejn. The 2"d respondent by his order dated 18-02-2005 condoned the delay and further he thought it appropriate to finally dispose of the dispute on merit and accordingly heard the parties and found that the 3rd respondent - Gram Panchayat while granting fishing right in favour of the petitioners had overlooked the preference enjoyed by the 6th respondent - Group and in that view of the matter, he set aside the order of the 4 respondent and remanded the proceedings to Gram Panchayat to grant the fishing rights in accordance with law and taking into account the priorities provided under the Government orders. Hence, this writ petition. (2) ! have heard Jearned counsel for the copies for a corssiderable time. There is one area where there cannot be any dispute between the parties andin fact there is no dispute. The 2 respondent in his order -^- has not considered the finding recorded by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Berfa, referred to above, that the three members of the 6th respondent - Group were defaulters and therefore, denial of fjshing right to the 6 respondent - Group is justified. !t is truethat the 6 respondent who had preferred the revision ought to have sought a decision at the hands of the 2nd respondent as to whether the above flnding recorded by the Chief Executive Officer against it was justified or not. But, the order would show that this question was not pointedly urged before the 2" respondent. Be that as it may, if reaily certain members of the 6th respondent - Group are defaulters, refusal of the 3rt respondent - Gram Panchayat to grant fishing right in favour of the 6th respondent - Group CQUld not be faulted with. The 2 respondent without deciding that material issue ought not to have remanded the proceedings to Gram Panchayat to dispose of the fishing rights afresh taking into account only the preferences and not the defaults committed by the members of the 6 respondent - Group. In that view of the matter, it becomes imperatlve to direct the 2nd respondent to consider first whether the finding recorded by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Berla that three members of the 6 respondent - Group are defauiters, on facts, is justified or not and only in the event of the 2nd respondent flnding that the above finding of the Chief Executive Officer is not substantlated or erroneous, the 3 respondent disposing of the fishing rights afresh would arise. In that view of the matter, ! allow the wrlt petltion and set aside the impugned order of the 2 respondent. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the 2nd respondent with a direction to dispose of the Revision afresh in the light of this order. Due to this Ijtigation a valuable source of revenue available to the 3rd '•'! -T- respondent - Gram Panchayat has been blocked. Therefore, there is a need for the 2nd respondent to dispose of the Revision without much ioss of time. AccordingSy, E direct the 2"d respondent to dlspose of the Revision within a period of six weeks from the date of recelpt of a copy of thls order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to 2nd respondentforthwith. Nocosts. ~~— 1 Sd/- Chief Justice Subbu 1