PreSent: Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate. Mr. V.V.5. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Generol with Mr. S. Gupta, Govt. Advocate Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate. \ J ORDER @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.4915 OF 2006 PETITIONER Ma’rsya Udyog Sahkari 5ami’ri Mar-yadi’r, P.V.—77 Pakhanjur', Distric‘r Kanker (C.6.), Through I ITS Presiden'r Heeralal MandaL son of Shri Teenkadi Mandel, aged about 58 years, Residen’r of P.V.—77 Pakhanjur‘, Tahsil Pakhanjur‘, Dish'icf Kanker (C.G.). Vs RESPONDENTs 1. Sfa’re of Chha’r’risgar‘h, Through ’rhe Secretary, Agricul’rure (Fisheries Deparfmen’r), D.K.$. Ehawan,, Raipur, Chhaf’risgarh. 2. The Collector, District Kanker‘ (5.6.). 3. The Deputy Direcfor, Fisheries Depar‘l‘men’r, Kanker' (C.G.). 4. Janpad Panchaya’r, Koylibeda, District Kanker (C.G.), Through: The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchoyat Koylibeda, District Kanker (C.6.) 5.Jai Buddhadeo Motsya Palan Sva— Sohayata Samooh, Through: Its President P.V.-77 Pakhanjur, District Kanker (C.6.). For the petitioner. For respondent No.1 to 4. For respondent No.5. (Passed on limMarch, 2008) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order of Annexure P-5 dated 05.09.2005 passed hy respondent No.4 whereby M.I.T. Irrigation Pond (for short 'the pond’) has been allotted to respondent No.5 herein for the purposes of pisciculture. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered co-operative society and in the year 1999 vide Annexure P-2 the pond in. question was allotted to the petitioner society on Iease for a period of Seven years. The ,Dhirendra Mishra, J 1. Page20f4 w WI pefi’rioner sociefy comple’red fhe Term of lease successfully withou'l‘ any defaulf and had also deposited ’rhe leaSe ren’r as per condi‘l‘ion in ’rhe lease deed. Af1‘er‘ expiry of 'rhe period of above lease deed The p'e‘lil‘ioner' society moved several applica’rions before respondent No.4 for re—allotment of the pond on lease and even the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Penkodi has also given no objection certificate for re- ollotment. However, respondent No.4 did not allot the pond nor gave any reply to the applications of the petitioner society for re-allotment. Respondent No.4, ignoring the applications submitted by the petitioner society and also ignoring the rules and directions framed by the State Government for allotment of pond, allotted the pond in question to respondent No.5 on temporary lease on 5.9.2005 vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner society submitted representation against the above allotment before the concerned authority and thereafter the instant petition has been filed, as the allotment of pond on lease to respondent No.5 is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government on 24.4.2003 of Annexure P-8 according to which the petitioner society had a preferential right for taking the pond on lease. ' . Respondent No.1, 2 6i 3 in their return have averred that the. General Body of Janpad Panchayat; Koylibeda vide its resolution dated 25.4.2005 decided to allot the pond in question to respondent No.5 for a period of five years on temporary basis and in pursuance thereof leaSe agreement has already been executed on 5.9.2005. Respondent No.5 is a registered co-operative society and its registration certificate is Annexure R4-1. Executive instructions contained in Annexure P-8 have been followed and accordingly leaSe agreement of Annexure R4-2 has been executed between respondent No.4 & 5 on 5.9.2005. Resolution of the General Body of Janpad Panchayat is appealable under the Chhattisgarh Page 3 of 4 PanchayaT (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 and in view of The availabili‘ry of alTernafive s'l‘afuTory remedy for ‘rhe pefi’rioner‘, The insmnf petition is nof mainfainable. 4. Respondent No.4 has also Taken The similar sTand. 5. RespondenT No.5, To whom The pond in quesTion was alloTTed by The General Body of‘ Janpad PanchayaT, Koylibeda vide resoIuTion of Annexure R4—1 daTed 25.4.2005, in iTs separaTe reTur‘n averred ThaT Though The peTiTioner was granTed lease of The pond for pisciculTure in The year 1997 for a period of M seven years, however, The peTiTioner socieTy has sub-IeT The pond To one Subhash Vishwas 6i Vimol Sarkar and Therefore, The peTiTioner SocieTy is noT enTiTled for any preferenTial righT. AffidaviT of aforesaid persons has also been filed by respondenT No.5 along wiTh The reTurn. IT has been fu’rTher sTaTed ThaT guidelines provided for preferenTial righT To The old socieTies, however, iT does noT conTemplaTe ThaT ponds are To be necessarily given on leaSe To The old socieTies. General Body of Janpad PanchayaT, Koylibeda considering The overall siTuaTion including goodwill and work of respondenT No.5, in iTs discreTion, alloTTed The pond To respondenT No.5 and The alloTmenT is sTricTly in accordance wiTh The guidelines of Annexure P—8. 6.Learned counsel for The parTies have advanced similar argumenTs in accordance wiTh Their pleadings in The peTiTion, as above. 7. From perusal of The pleadings of The respecTive parTies iT is noT in dispuTe ThaT The peTiTioner as well as respondenT No.5 boTh are regisTered fisheries socieTies and as Such, boTh are eligible for preference as per circular daTed 24.3.2003 (Annexure P—8). The pond in quesTion is siTuaTed in The jurisdicTion of Janpad PanchayaT Koylibeda and vide resoluTion daTed 25.4.2005 The General Body of Janpad PanchayaT, /\/ Roshcm/- Page 4 of 4 @ Koylibeda has decided To give dispufed pond on Iease *0 responden‘l‘ No.5 and in pursuance of The above decision Iease deed has aiready been execu’red befween responden’r No.4 6g 5 for a period of five years w.e.f. 5.9.2005 as per Annexure R5-3. . The peTiTioner has claimed preferenTial righT on The ground fhaf The order of Annexure P-8 menfions ‘l‘ho'l‘ area of work of the pe‘ri'iioner socie’ry is wifhin fhe paramefers of 8 kiiomefers and fherefore, The peTiTioner had preferenTiai righT for obTaining lease. The order of Annexure P-8 is merely guidelines To The officers of The STaTe and iT has no sTaTuTory force. The peTiTioner has noT been able To show any consTiTuTional or sTaTufory righT of preference over respondenT No.5. RespondenT No.4, a democraTic insTiTuTion, vide iTs resolufion daTed 25.4.2005 decided To give The dispuTed pond on lease To respondenT No.5. IT is also noT in dispuTe ThaT respondenT No.5 is a regisTered socieTy and eligible for The alloTmenT of pond and Therefore, The acTion of re‘spondenT No.4 is neiTher unreasonable nor arbiTrary or againsT The principles of naTural jusTice. In view of The above, I am of The considered opinion ThaT There is no circumsTance exisTing in The presenT case warranTing inTerference by This Court for exercise of exTraordinary wriT jurisdicTion under ArTicle 226/227 of The ConsTiTuTion of India for quashi‘ng The impugned order daTed 5.9.2005 of Annexure P—5 whereby The pond in quesTion has been alloTTed To respondenT No.5 on leaSe. 10. In The resulT, The peTiTion has no meriT, The same deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as To coSTs. , sd/_ Dhirendra Mishra r Judge