HIGH CG M URT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NQg063 OF 2002 Sagarbai Mahiiang Versus State of Chhattisgarh 8; Others Post for prcnouncement of the judgmeni & order on ifaay of July, 2009 sdl- _ Satish K. Agnihotn Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON NO. 2063 OF 2G0? PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sagarbai Mahi!ang,. wife of Anand Ram Mahilang, aged about 45 years, resident - of viliage Karhi, Tahsii Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Samaj Kalyan, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CQ). Collector, Couectorate, Bilaspur. Sub Divisional Officer, Mungeii, District Biiaspur (CG). Chief Executive Ofhcer, Matsaya Krishak Vikas Abhikaran, Biiaspur (CG). Pichhada Varg, Swa Sahayata Samuh, Karhi, Tahsil Mungeii, District Biiaspur (CG). Gram Panchayat Karhi, Tahsil Mungeii, District Bilaspur (CG). :1. (Writ petition under Articie 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri MD. Dhote, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D. Whankhacle, counsel for the respondent No.4. None appears on behalf of the respondents No.5 & 6, despite service of notice. I JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this .27Kday of July, 2009) Heard iearned counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, a duly' eiected woman Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karhi, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated i4“ March, 2002 (Annexure — PM) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers Development Authority, Bilaspur. Shri MP5. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. V @ The facts, in nutsheli, for disposal of the case, are that the Gram Panchayat Karhi by reselution dated 7th October, 2001 (Annexure — P/2) granted lease for the purpose of Fishing to the respondent No.5 - Pichhada Varg Swa Sahayata Samuh, Karhi (for shorf “me respondent No.5 Society”) for a period of 10 years. The petitioner submits that the resolution granting tease for 10 years to the respondent No.5 was iltegai and contrary to the basic principies of law, as three panchas nameiy; Sohawan Bat, Ramnarayan and Rohit Kumar were the members of the respondent No.5 Society and Panchas of Gram Panchayat Karhi. They participated in the proceedings and the resotution is carried out to grant fishing tease to the respondent No.5 Society. Upon resolution of Gram Panchayat, the Collector passed the order granting tease to the respondeht No. 5-Society for a period of tO years by order dated 15‘ December, 2901 (Annexure R-4i2). The petitioner made a complaint to the Collector. On the basis of the complaint and as per the directions of the Coliector, the Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers Development Authority, Bilaspur, issued a show cause notice to at! the Panchas of Gram Panchayat Karhi on the ’33” February, 2002 (Annexure — P/4). Thereafter, the respondent No.4. after having considered the response submitted by the Panchas, came to the conclusion that the Sarpanch (petitioner herein) did not object participation of Sohawan Bai, Ramnarayan and Rohit Kumar, at the time of passing of resolution, therefore, the resolution cannot be held as illegal or irregular. it was directed that the names of Sohawan Bai, Ramnarayan and Rohit Kumar may be deleted from the order dated 15‘ December, 2001. Thus, this petition. Shri Dhote, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the meeting of Gram Panchayat Karhi dated 7‘“ October, 20m was not convened in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Procedure of Meeting and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1994 (for short “the r» -$/’ W Rules, 1994’). At the time of passing of resolutien, three panchas namely; Sohawan Bai, Ramnarayan and Rohif Kumar, who wefe the members of the respondent No.5 Society, participated in the pmceedings, which is not at ail sustainabie in the eye of iaw. The respondent No.4 instead of quashing the resoiu‘iion dated 7t“ October, 2001 iitegaiiy ordered for deletion of names of Sohawan Bai, Ramnarayan and Rohit Kumar. Per contra, Shri Bhatia! iearned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State, wouid submit that the State has nothing to say in the matter, as the resoiution was passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondent No.5 Society. Shri Whankhade, tearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, would submit that the resolution cannot be held as illegal or bad on the ground that petitioner herself was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karhi and in her presence the resolution was passed unanimousty without any opposition from Sarpanch. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent No.4 Chief Executive Qfficer, Fish Farmers Development Authority, Bilaspur, by order dated 14‘“ March, 2002 (Annexure ~P/1) directed to delete the names of ;st l Sohawan Bai, Ramnarayan and Rohit Kumar from the order dated December, 2001, but the petitioner without challenging the order dated 15* December, 2001 has chailenged the order dated 14th March, 2002. Even copy of the order dated 15* December, 2001 has also not been tiled and nothing has been stated by the petitioner in the pleadings as well as during the course of arguments about the order dated 15‘ December, 2001. it is a trite law that the resolution on its own does not come into effect unless the same is converted into an order by the competent authority. A resolution was passed in presence of the petitioner Le. Sarpanch, which resulted into passing 9f the order dated 15‘ December, 2001 (Annexure R-4/2). The petiiioner has no‘i chailenged the order dated 15‘ December, 2001, which is stin in operation; By the subsequent order dated 14‘“ March, 2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, name of three Panchas have been deleted. if the same is quashed; it would not ultimateiy quash the order dated 15‘ December, 2001. Even if the impugned order dated 14‘“ March, 2002 is hetd to be bad, as the Chief Executive Officer has directed to delete the names of Panchas namely Sohawan Bai, Ramharayan and Rohit Kumar, which he cannot do once they have participated in the proceedings and on the basis of resolution, order has been passed. For want of challenge to the main order granting lease for a period of 1O years on the 15‘ December 2001, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, because the resolution is not an order. it is simply a proposal and the propose: itself does not create any right or does not infringe any legal, fundamental or statutory right, unless it is converted into the form of proper order. 9. ln view of foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is liable to be and is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. >7 ////_/ '/ H I Satish I Jrgdge > . e/ Gowri