\ff (^ IN THE HIGH COURTOFJUDICATUREATJMLASPUg '•;:^' )>^ WRITPETITIONNO. _[l^-_J2M4 PETmOHERS ... ^ / ^ ^^r ^K^ 2. ~S( ?-.^-^•' ^Y-- <?-^T-- <^/' -VERSUS- Advasi Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sondur (a society registered uadeT the Chhattisgarh Co-operative SocietiesAct,1960) through its President Punarad Ram, S/o Siiri Lakhmu Ram, aged 54years.Oceupation-Rsli8nnaB, R/o Village'Meelika, Tahsil- Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Prathmik Matsya Saliakari Samiti Maryadit,Koliyari(asocie<y registered under the CUiattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960) through its President, Rikhi Ram Nishad, S/o Motilal Nishad, aged 29 years,0ccupation-Fishermaa, lUo ViUase-Tin-a, Post Office- Koliyari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.) State ofCMiattisgarhfliougii Principal Secretary, Department ofAgriculture (Pish Eanniag), Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Secretaiy, D epartment of Agriculture (Fish Parming), Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) Seeretary, D epartment of Go- operative, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar, Co-operative Sflcieties, State ofChhattisgarh, Ralpur (C.G.) M anaging Diractor, Chliattisgarh State Co-operative Fish Federation Ltd.,RajaTalab, Raipur(C.G.) ; THECONSTITUTIOWQFINBIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SIirTABLI; WRIT. ORDERS OR MKECTIOM8 6 »::^ ^ : < V WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226^27 L. f» HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISSARH) Writ Petition No. 114 of 2004 Adivasi Machua Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sondur and anottier. Vers.us State of Chhattisgarh ond others. POSTFOR OROERON ^^^ FEBRUARY, 2004 Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge ./• / ^ •<.. HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTIS6ARH) Writ Petitisn No. 114 <yf 2004 Adivasi i^achuu Sahakari Samiti Muryudit, Sondur and another. Versys State of Chhattisgarh andothers. Present:- Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate wil+i Shri Rajeev Shrivastwa, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.5. Koshy, 6ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents 1 to 4. Shri Prashouit Mishra, Counsel for the intervener. QR E>ER O'assed on 2,c^--^Februar/ 2004) As per L.C. Bhadoo J. By thispetition filed under Ari-icies 226/227 of the Constitution of India ths pstitionsrs have cha!len9ed the action of rsspondent Ns.S-Rotice dated 9 January 2004 inviting Tenders for marketing of the fishes. The ground of challenge is that tiie petitioners were 9nnted rights of fishing and •: r' '. ' /.. marketing of Sondur and Songrel Reservoirs by the pish Federation in jcompliance of the order dated 24-3-2003 passed by respondenr-No.l and the ordsr dcted 6-10-2003 of Secrstary Departmsnt of Fishing .niNT agrsemfents were entered into between the parties. However, respondent No.5 in contravention of the order da+ed 24-3-2003 passed by respondent No.l hus .called tender-s for marketin9 of the fishes of Sondur ond Sangrel Reservoirs alonq with others. 5. ^ 2. Brief facts giving rise to filina of this petitionare that the petitioners ar-e registered Societies under the Societtes Act, 1960 as per Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/2. The-se societies have been constituted with an object to protect the interest of poor fishermen scatfered in the entire State of Chhattisgarh, as they are iliiterate, living below ths poverty lirie caid belonging to socially and economically backward class. 3. ftespondent No.l in pursuance of the order dated 13-2-2003 passed by the Council of AAinisters of the State of Chhattisgarh passed a" order dated ^ '24-3-2003 directing to ailot the iease of reservoirs for fish cuiture in the foliowin9 order'.- (i) Registered Fishermen Co-opemtive Societies. (ii) Fishermen Sroup. (iii) Fishermen in person. (iv) The area where famiiies are displaced due to submer-gence in tiie year 1965 or thereafter. (v) If cmy of theabovementioned four group is not avaiiable in any yiilage or area, then se!f helping groups. The order passed by respondent No.l is Annexure-P/5. 1 4. In compliance of the order dated 24-3-2003, on 6T11 October 2003, the Secretary, Department of A9riculture (Fish Farmin9), State of Chhattisgarh passsd another order as per" Annexure-P/6 handing oyer the mcmagement of six reservoirs to the psh Federation for a period of one year on an experimental basis. The Fish Federation entered into on agreement with the pe-titionerNo.l for Sondur Reservoir and the petitioner No-2 for Sangrel Reservoir for a period of fifteen dcys. Copy of the agreement entered into between Fish Federation with the petitioner No.l and No.2 are Annexures-P/7 and P/8 respectively. On expiry of the period indicated in the agreement and on representation made by the petitioners, the Monaging Oirector, responde-nt No.5 of the Fish Federation dire-cted the petitioners to continue the fish rearing as.per the terms and conditions of the agreement till the mar-keting policy is dsdded ond looking to the finoncal condition of the Fidh \ r Federation it was extended until further orders. Copy of the order dated 15-12-2003 is Annexure-P/9. 5. Tlie further case of the petitioners is that as per the above orders dated 24-3-2003 and 6-10-2003 the iSovemment and -rtie Fish Fedemtion were duty bound to permit the petitioners for fish rearin9 for a period of one year. However, the Managing Director Fish Federation without revoking the order dated 15-12-2003 by which the petitioners were permitted to continue fishing and its marketing has invited tenders for marketing of the fishes of t Sangrei and Sondur Reservoirs along with four other reservoirs yia'e Annexure-P/10. The petitioners were given right of fishsng and its marksting in compliance of the order dated 24-3-2003 passed by respondent No.l. The petitioners be!ong to socially and economically backward ciass of the societ/ and they are living below the poverty !ine. The pe-titioners society as well as their Apex Society Fish Federation has been constituted with a view to uplift the !iving stamdard of the fishermen of the State cmd to protect their economic interest. The impugned order would notonly frustrate theobject of forming the Fish Fsderation but it wou!d frustrate the entire Co-operative moyement of the State which is a tool for bringing socialism in the society (ind uplifting The downtrodden ckiss of the society. Therefore, The oction of rsspondent No.5 iS arbitrar/, iilegal ond contrary to the law cpplicable to the present case. Against his own order dated 15-12-2003 allowing the petitioners to continue fishing and marketin9 until further orders Respondent No.5 hos trayeled beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners prcysd for quashing the tender published by the Managing Director, Fish Federation on 9-1-2004 caid atlowmg them to continue fishing and marketing of the fishes from Sondur and Sangrel reservoirs. 6. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 stating that the instant petition is not maintcinable for the reason that under Section 64 of the Chharrisgarh Co-operative Sociefies AcT if there is any dispute in respect of the managsmsnt or business of the society, •the same shall be referred to the Registrcr by ony of the parties. The petition is also not maintainablefor^ the reason that the petitioners are the persons who are operating only in Sondur' and Songre! r-eseryoirs, whereas there are five other reserv'oirs, which have also bee.tt include-d in the tender list. This petition is al.so not maintainable for the reason that highly disputed questions of facts are involved in the petition which can bs prii'nariiy adjudicated upon after recording the evidence and appreciation of the documentary evidence, which is not permissibie under Articies 226/227 of tiie Constitution of India. 7. The further co.se of the Stnte is that the 5+o.te of Chhattisgdrh vide order dated 24-3-2003 had issuea' the poiicy in respect of fishing to be conductsd in the State ofChhattisgarh. In the sead fishing policy it wcs categorically held that all those reservoirs/ponds above 200 hectares would be auctioned by -rf-ie fishertes department itself ois per Arinexure-R/1. The -State iSoye-rnment yide its order dorfed 30 August 2003 on comple+ion of •Hie iease w.e.f. 15-6-2003 five of the reservoirs in the State of Chharrisgarh wers surrendered to the Fisheries [>epQrtment. Howeve", subsequently since the Fish Federation had entered into a financial crunch.. they made a request to the State 6oyemment anc! the Stute Sovemment vide its order dated 6-10-2003 keeping the new fishing policy in abeyance granted the Fish FederaTion one year period on on experimental basis with conditions ThaT firstly the psh Federation shcll itself conduct the fishing and sha!! not get the fishing done through the contractors and the fishing should be done by the fishermen of the fisheries department and secondly the said Fish Federation sholl in turn psxy royalty to the Stcte Sovernment © 4% per k9, as per Annexure-ft/3. 8. The Fish Fedsration vide rssolution dated 16-9-2003 decidsd that the tenders should be called for the marketing of the fishes which are lifted from the different reservoirs under the Fish Fedsration, as per Annexure- R/4. Since -Hie petitioners period for fishing and marketing was till 15-12- 2003 and for the recison ThaT no finalizQtion in respect of The subsequent tenders •vas finalized, the petitioners wsre grantsd permission to continue fishin9 and marketing till the alternative arrangement is made, as per f Annexure-R/5. Thereafter the impugned order calling for tender notice were published in the newspaper. Trie petitioners hav'e the right to the extent of fishing in the reservoirs. As for as marketing is concerned, it is always the prerogative of the Fish Federation which is the owner of the reservoirs and a!so the orgcaiizction which is carrying on with the food seed production ssnd rearing and deyelopment of the reservoirs and the fisheries in the reservoirs, therefore, the petitioner be dismissed. 9, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. • 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued -riiat all the six ponds were handed oyer to the Fish Federation for a period of one year on a" experimentai basis vide order dated 6 October 2003. It was further prescribed that the Fish Federation itsslf wiil look after the fishing work through fishermen and will ensure that tfie fishermen are benefited maximum and -Hiese ponds wiil be given to the Fish Federation on -rtie basiS of royai+y of Rs.4 per kg prescribed by the Stcte and thersafter the Fish Fsdsration gove These ponds to The Fishermen Co-operaTive Societies under The various agreements. The petitioners 1 ond 2 were gwen these two ponds under the agreements Annexures-P/7 cmd P/8 respectively up to 15-12-2003 and that ' period was extended until furmer orders. Under these agreements the Hshermen Socistiss wsrs gi"en the right of fishing as we!l ss marketin9. Therefore, these ponds were under the control of the psh Federation for per-iod of one year on tin experimentai basis, as such respondent No.5 wos not entitled to issue- the notice inviting tenders for sale of the fishes. "'l 11. On the other hand, Shri Pmshant Mishra, learned counsei for the intervener orid Shri P.S. Koshy, 6ovt. Advocste argued thct ss per Annexure-P/5 the ponds which ars more Than 200 hectares area are to be ouctioned as per Ciause 1(1.4) of Anenxure-P/5. As per the resoiution of the Fish Federation dnted 16 September 2003 (Annexure-R/4) it was decided that the fishing in the six ponds wouid be done by the Fish Federation at the prescribed rates, whersas ths marketin9 of the fishes would be done on the tender basis. Therefore, the petition of the petitioners deserves to be ai{^ 'sj3pjo iia^+jnj. [;+un papus+xa som aiui» ai)4. so 'goOZ .laqtUsssg g^ .IS^fO +USUIOUI XUD UO p34.0UIUiJ34. ussq SAOI) p[no3 +OL|4. Xj|o6s| 'SJO^S-'SLJJ^ •suspjo jsi^-jnj. |i4.un pspusixa SDM 4.1 'jaAamoij 'gQOZ .oquisssq 31 UO J3AO SOiW SJSUOI+j+sd Stj+ pUO UOI+Dd3p3j tjsy aij4. USSM+Sq O+U] pS^S+US 4.u3Uia3u6o ai{^ •eisoq ii»pua4. 344. uo uaAi6 uaaq SAOI) pjnoijs +ct)+ pauusouoo si 6uj4.a>|joui so JDJ. SD puo SJIOA^SSSJ 9 ai|4. ||D j.o sai+iAi+sD Buiijsy 31)4. op o+ ps^inbai som ^jss+i uoi+ojspsj LJSIJ sijr (^./y-ajnxauuy) £002 .isquia+dss 91 ps+op yoi+ojspaj L|S!J at|4. ^o uoi4.n|osau sAoqo 34). j.o MSIA ui •g^ •sisoq japU3+ uo suop sq p|noi|s 6u\^.S)\jwst au^. puo sa+oj jnoqo| psqussajd aij4. uo uoi+iMapa^ t{sij ai|4. Xq 3uop sq pjnoijs SJIOAJSSSJ pajj3jsi.nx4 9 344. ui 6ujt|S!.). ai|4. +i"+l- paA|osai y--o(s| lUa+i Dpua6o japun Eui+aaai s+i ui uoi+ojapsj ijsy ei{4. gQOZ •isq'.us+dss ^9^ ps4.op ^•/y-sjnxeuuy uo!+n|ossy 31)4. uad sy -sjspjo ^ai^jnj. |i4.un pspua+xs SDM pouad 3141. uoij.iuspsj i t|sy si|+ J.o uoi+ipuoa |opuouj.j. Sl]+ 0+ 6UI>|00| pUO US>jCi). 51 534?!j, 344. J.Q 6uj4.3>|joui 344. 6uipjc6au uoisisap A3i|od 344. ||i+ pouad +ai)4. papua+xa g'o[s) +uspuodsaj 'jo+sajig 6ui6Duovy 344. g/j-ajnxsuuy £002-21-31 ps4-DP •isp^o uo Ag •S3t|S!j. 31)4. ,0 6UI+3>|JOUI so ]|affi so Suit(S!j. ^o^. £003.oquiayaq g^ o+ dn iuawsajSv uo japun sa+aaoc aAUDjado-o^ tjsij snouoA 04. spuod ssaiu. 3Av6 uoi+iuapaj tpy atj+ u^n+ ui puo pa+jj.-auaq aic uaiujaijsy 31)4. +Bij4. ajns-ua ||jm piro uauuaijsy av^. /.q auop >|^OM au^. 4.96 []IM uo!4.D^spaj tj?y 8i|4. asodjnd 4.01)4- JO^ pUD JO+3DJ+U03 AUD 0+ U3A16 3q 4.0U ||IM +1 puo 4|as+! uoi+iuapaj i|sy ai|4. Aq suop sq |JIM Bui^siJ. ai|4. +01)4. uoi+ipuos 31)4. I|+!M sisoq ]i3i(.usuii^sdxs uo uo josA suo J.o pouad n joi uouDjapsj usy SUA o+ JSAO papuo^ a43M spuod 9 av^. ^ \ ;;' 11V '9/d-ajnxsuuy uapun 'fr002~T~6 uo •'o+as^iQ 6ui6ouoyy 'S"o(sj 4.uspuodsai Aq panssj EO" satjsij. ai|4. J.Q 6u!4.s>{jDiu jo,. E>iapus4. Bu^jAuiasj+ou ai|J^ •spjoow si|4. p3snjad 3ADi| i 'saii-iod 31)4. ^o^ |ssuno3 psujDS) 344. p.ixwq 6uiAD|-| 'gi •6uinu!4.uo3 jji+s s^o sjsuos+i+ad 3L|+ j.o sti)6ij 6uit|sy a4<- 'JaASMOj-) •S4.usuiaa46D 3114. ^spun 00141. OA uaAiB a.io i|3ii|M suioAjasag l-ajOuiog puo jnpuos ^o s-puod j.o 4.ua+xa 31)4. o+ aoi+ou ai|4. pa6uaiiDtj3 aADij g.jauoi+i+ad 844. 'soajaijm spuod uaAas =10^. panssi uaaq soij sai^ij. 31)4. j.0 6U!4.3>|JOUI JOj. 3314.0U J3PU34. at|+ +DL|4. psn6j0 J3L|4.jnj. 3|-| •p3SS!UISIp a<3rvei respondent No.5 Managing Director of the Fish Federation by the impugned notic® inviting tenders for marketing of the pshes (Annexure-P/10) hud invited te-nders for marketing of the fishes of the seven reseryoirs. The above action of respondent No.5 is in consonance with the resolution passed by the Fish Fsdsratiori in its meeting datsd 16 Septembsi' 2Q03. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in this action of respondent No.5. 14. Moreover, as far as fishing is concerned that is still with the petitioners and the petitioners are not deprived of their rights of fishing V from Sondur and Sangrei R^servoirs. The notice inviting tenders has been issusd only for the purpose of the marketing of Sondur a"d &L"9rel Reservoirs along with other five reservoirs oyid this action of respondent No.S is not going, in any way, to effect the in-i'erest of 1+ie petitioners. They wi!! be entitled to their prices whatever received. Moreoyer, the petitione-rs have not been able To lead ond estabiish that how this action of respondent No.5is 9oing to <sffsct their irsterest. Moreover, theother fishsrmen Societies to whom other 5 reservoirs allocated have not come forward rather as per the resolution they have participated in the bids. 15. The learned counsel for the State further argued thot in view of the provisions of Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act if orey dispute in respect of the maiagemsnt or business of a society ths same shal! bs referred to the Registrar by any of the parties, therefore, the writ petition does not lie in the matter. But, I do not find any force in this argument of the learned counsel for the State- for the reason that the- present dispu+e- is not in respect of the management or business of the society, but the dispute is between the Stste caid the Society, thersfors, Section 64 doss notappiy in thiscase. 16. In the result, I a'onot find ony substance in this petition. Tne same is !:abls tc be dismissed ond it is dismissed. r \ Sd/- \ L.C.Bhadoo Judge