:wt'•<! '<• HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTtSGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.618 OF 2004 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Vs. Mahila Swa-Sahayata Samuh Gorhihari, through- its secretary, Smt. Naan Bai, wife of Phulchand, aged about 35 years, R/o. Village, Gram Panchayat & Post-Gorhihari, Block Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, D.K. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Gram Panchayat, Village Gorhihari, Through its Secretary, village- Gorhihari, Block Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Collector (Fisheries), District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Shri Doodh Nath PatelS/o, Not known, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, R/o. Village-Gorhihari, BlockSarangarh,Dist.Raigarh(C,G.) 5. Shri Rohit Marar S/o. Mohan aged about 35 years, Gram-Patel of Village- - Gorhihari, R/o. Village-Gorhihari, Block Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Present: Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned counsel forthe Stete of Chhattisgarh. Mr. P. Diwakar, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.R. Patankar, teamedcounsel for respondent 2,4 & 5. ORALORDER (Passed on 12"' January, 2006) The Collector (Fisheries), the third respondent herein, by his order dated 09/07/2002 granted fishing rioht to the petitioner herein for a period of tsn years commencing from Q9/07/2002. It is the case & •a- of the petitioner that in pursuance of the above grant, it has sown fish seeds in the tank known as Bade Talab situate at Khasra No.459 measuring 4.100 hectares at village Gorhihari in Block Sarangarh district Raigarh and paid the lease rent tn advance for the period ending June 2005 wlth respondent No.2. When the matter stood thus, the third respondent by the impugned order dated 18/02/2004 oancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner - Society itsetf has ropresented to the Gram Panchayat to cancel the Isase. The petitioner - Society being aggrieved by the said action has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking interventionofthe Court. (2) Thls Coun havlng entertained the wrtt petltlon by Its order dated 27/2/2004 stayed the operation of the impugned order and that interim order has been in operation till date. At the time of hcaring, it was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the parties that though this Court stayod the operation ofthe impugnedorder, fishing is completely stopped till date. (3) Although the impugned order is granted on the purported application ofthe petitioner—Society itself requesting the authoritiesto cancet the lease, the petiUoner in great detail has set out in the writ petition the circumstances leading to flllng of such application and coercion and undue influences exercised by the people of Gorhihari village, particularly, respondents 4 and 5 (respondeht No.4 - is the former Sarpanch of village Panchayat, whereas responctent No.5 re the Gram Patel of Gorhihari viltage). The retevant pleading in that '^ d5 -3,' regard iscontained in paras 5.4 and 5.5 of the writ petition which reads as foltou^: " That, the respondent No.4 is the present Sarpanch and the respondent No.5 is the Patel of Village-Gorhihari. These persons/officers are creating probiems for the petitioner group as they want to allot the said tank for fishing to the people of their own political & social group. That, on 23.07.02 these persons led a march to the offlce of S.D.O. Sarangarh for cancellation of the tease-deed in favourofthe petitioner and started creating law and order problem. That, these people used to promate theft of fish-stock belonging to the pstitioner and proceedings u/s 107,116(3) of Cr.P.C. against some people closed to them viz. - Mahesh Ram, Kheek Ram, Ganesh @ Herhga, Rameshwar and Geeta Ram by P.S. sarangarh on report dated 10.07.03 and aaainst Laxman Kenwat u/S 109/(2) of Cr.P.C. on report dated 23.08.03. That, the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 also imposed social boycott of the members of the petitioner group and the people of viltage-Gorhihari were directed not to interact with them agalnst whlch a wrltten complaint dated 05.08.02, was todged by the Naan Bai, the secretary of the petitioner group. A copy of the report dated 05.08.02 is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-5. That, the respondents put all kind of pressure over the lady members as well as their family members to foce them to surrender their lease over Bade Talab. That, ultimately on 06,11.02 succumbing to the pressure put by the respondents No.4 & 5, and on the initiatlon teken by the 5.D.O. Sarangarh, the petitioner agreed to sign an agreement. A copy of the agreement dated 06.11.02 is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-6. But the respondents No.4 & 5 did nof follow the conditions of the same and started promoting theft offish stock in the tank. ^- ^,j That, when tho petitioner applied for lease for 10 years of two other lanks viz. - Marahi Talab and Amha Talab vide applications dated 06.02.03,22.03.2003,25.03.2003 and 25.05.2003, the respondent No.2 granted only Maraht Talab to the petltioner that too for a perlod of 5 years onhf. which was clear cut violation of the spirit in which the agreement dated 06.11.02 was signed. Therefore, on 30.10.03 the petitioner filed an application dated 29.10.03 before the various authorities of the State Govt. for not cancelling their lease-deed. Copies of the applications dated 06.02.03, 22.03.2003,25.03.2003 and 25.05.2003, are jointly being annexed herewith as Annexure P-7 and a copy of the apptication dated 29.10.03 is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-8." (4) Although at the time of hearing, the learned Govt. Advocate appeaiing for the State authorities and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 4 and 5 would attampt to supplamont tha reasons fcr tha impugned action by contanding that the original grant of lesse itself was bad in law. because, the arant was made without the consent of the second respondent and that the subject tank as per the wlshes of the people of Gorhihari vlltage Is requlred to be kept apart for the general uses of the peopte of ttie village, 1 am not inclined to appreciate that contention urged before the Courtat the time of final hearing. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and anotherVs. ChiaT Eiection Commissioner, New Delhi and another in para 8 oftha judgment observed thus: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when statutory functionary makes an order - on certain 1. AIR1978SC8S1 -$•- '7 ,J ^ grounds, Hs validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supptemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Othenvise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional arounds letter brouaht out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18) 'Public orders publicty mad, In exerclse of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or ofwhat was in his mind, or what he intended todo. Public orders made by public authorities are mend to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Therefore, the validity of the impugned action has to be decided with reference to the ground stated in the impugned order. The petitioner is a group ofwomen drawn from the Backward and Suppressed classes of thesociety. The petitioner - Society is formed exctusively of the women who belong to the scheduled caste weaker section of the Society and all of them, it is claimed, are below the poveriy line. Such a Society formed for the purpose of undertaking fish husbandry and having persuaded the DistrictCollector to grantthe lease, it is highly incredible to abruptly and withoutany good reason coutd think of seeking cancellation of the lease, to their peril. Th.e reason stated in y~^'~ ^92 -t,- \ r- %^tSh the impugned order to cancel the tease does not stand to the scrutiny of commonsense and test of ratjonality. The circumstances set out in the pleading of the petitionsr which led to the petitioner - Society agreetng for cancetlation was, itappears under the influences brought on them by respondents 4 and 5 and thelr crontes in the vlllage. The Court would have refused the relief in a matter tike this, ifthe State authoritiea which had passed the impugned order were to state any substantive reasoh or ground to cancef the teaseto sub-serve public interest. In the ciroumstance of the case, lam inclined to betieve the version ofthe petitioner. (5) In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. A dlrection shall issue tothe respondents to permit the petitioner - Soclety to carry out theirflshing right secured under thegrant orderdated 09/07/2002 for a term of ten years, however, subjed to the peUtioner - Society perfbrming its duties and obligations intermsofthegrantorder; Nocosts. Sd/- Chlef Jiisdce Judge