1 (76:>Ia7§% IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR é (T w.P.N@i0. 2&6 OF 2009 PETITIONER : / Prathmik Matsya Sahakari Salniti, Maryadit, village— Kirwai Registration No.505, Block— Fingeshwar, Tahsil- Rajim, Distt. Raipur through President— Prathmik Matsya Sahkari Salniti Maryadit —Likhan Ram Dhiwar S/o Shri Kishun, aged about 52 years, RESPONDENTS / 1, R/o village- Koma, Block— Fingeshwar, Tahsil, Rajim Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chattisgarh through Secretary, Agriculture (Fisheries) Department, D.K.S. Bhavan ' Raipur (C.G). ./ 2. Director, Fisheries Department, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Collector, Gariyaband Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ' -\ Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers Development Agency, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Gram Panchayat, Arand, Janapad Panchayat— Fingeshwar, Tahsil— Rajim Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Secretary, Grain Panchayat— Fingeshwar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Jai Saraswativ Mahila Swa— Sahayta Samuh (Self—help group) Arand, through president—A Laxmi Bai Village— Arand, Block— FingeshWar, Distt‘ Raipur (C.G.) 2 WRIT PEHTION UNDER ARTICLE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA g £26/227 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI IR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2890 of 2009 PETITIONER : Prathmik > Matsya Sahakari Samiti, Maryadit & Others. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Present: Shri M.Sinha, K. Aocat dve for the petitioner. Shri N.N.R0y, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. RESPONDENTS None for other respondents. ORDER ORAL sd ‘ (Pase on 15 day of September, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seek to quas the order dated s h 14.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3, Additional Collector, Gariyaband hereby the Revenue w Revision Case o./03/B-l2l, year 2007-2008, has been N dismissed upholdin the esolution dated 10.09.2007, passed g r by the respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Arand. The facts, in nutshe, ar that the resondent No. 5, Gram ll e p Panchayat Arand. iue a notification/publication on ssd 08..20 for allotment of Government nd namely 097 po ‘Ganjha’ on lease for fishing as per policy of the government, In response, four applications including that of the petitioner and e esponden . 7-, were received. A resolution was th rt No b , passed y the Gram Panchayat allotting the lease of the pond for fishg to the respondet No.7,. According to the in n petitioner, the said pro‘posal was not in accordance with law, and cordingly, against 'the said resolution, the petitioner \ Satish K. Agnihotri, J. .\¥ ae preferred a revision before the respondent No. 3, praying for rejection of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The said revision was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P/l). However, in the meantime, the said resolution was stayed by the Additional Collector, vide order dated 11.07.2007. 3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 14.05.2009 .(Annexure P/l), it is evident that the respondent No. 3 has held that the petitioner had not filed certified copy of the resolution dated 10.09.2007 and further, all the applicants who participated for grant of lease, were not arrayed as party, thus, the revisionhwas not maintainable and the same was dismissed. Consequently, the stay granted vide order dated 11.07.2007 was also vacated. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the resolution, no specific order of allotment of pond on lease to the respondent No. 7 has been passed. The resolution cannot be subjected to judicial review as it is simple minutes of the proceeding. 5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat may be directed to pass an order, is without any basis as in a writ jurisdiction, where no specific order has been passed on the basis of resolution, as aforestated, as the resolution is only the record of the proceedings of the meeting of Gram Panchayat, no directions can be issued by this Court. The Gram Panchayat is competent to withdraw or to pass subsequent resolution modifying or withdrawing the earlier one. In View of that, no direction can be issued against the Gram Panchayat as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court, in Khatbadan Singh Parihar v. State of CG. & Others], held that ‘resolution’ is an expression of the opinion of the members who have come out to a unanimous conclusion but the v‘resolution’ by itself does not have the. force of law. The Supreme Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr.2, held that the resolutions are mere guidelines and not controlled by the statutory provisions. In the instant case, after passing of the resolution for allotment of Government pond namely Ganjha on lease to the respondent No. 7, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 3, without there being any specific order or execution of any lease between the Gram Panchayat and the respondent No. 7 which Was ultimately dismissed by the respondent No. 3. Thus, in absence of any specific order, the resolution, as aforestated, cannot be challenged. Applying the well settled principles 0f law to the facts of the case on hand, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is 'l.M‘ accordingly dismissed. 10. No order asto costs. Sdl- \2 Judge 1 W.P.(S) No. 21 15 of2009, decided on 19.03.2010. Z2008 AIR scw 208