^ IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (C) N0. /2011 PETITIONER ^.^L- ^^" 'syy .!-/' A< •;-.>..-•" y( RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Vinayak Machhuwara Kalyan Samiti, Village -Binori, Tahsil- Palari, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) (Registration No. 19786) through- Its President Shri Khetihar, S/o Khedu Ram, aged about 60 years, R/o Village- Binori, Post- Kosmandi, Tahsil-Palari, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Stgte of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Agriculture (Fisheries) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Diistrict; Raipur (C.6.). The Collector, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.6.) The Assistant Director, Fisheries Oepartment, Raipur, bistt. Raipur (C.6.) The 6ram Panchayat, Binon', Through- Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Binori, Tahsil- Palari, Oistt.- Raipur (C.6.) Eklavya Machhuwa Samiti, Binori, Through- Its President, Eklavya Macchuwa Samiti, Binori, Tahsil- Palari, Distt. -Raipur (C.6.). WR1T PETITION UNt>ER ARTECLE 226/227^F^THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1683 OF 2011 Vinayak Machhuwara Kalyan Samiti Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/2270fthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Sameer Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER (ORAU (Passedonthis11thdayofMay, 2011) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a- Heard learned counsel forthe parties. Challenge in this petition is to the resolution dated 1-9-2010 passed by the respondent No.4 wherein, it appears that, the Gram Panchayat has resolved to grant lease in favour of the respondent No.5 for a period of seven years. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that a resolution is not an order and the same cannot be given effect to unless a proper formal order is passed on the basis of resolution by the competent authority. It has been held in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that a resolution is a mere recommenr'ation and the same is not effective /pso facto. (See New India Assurance Cp. Ltd. V. NusliNeville Wadia &Anr.1). This Court in Khatbadan Singh Parihar v. State of C.G. & Others , held that 'resolution' is an expression of the opinion of the members who have come out to a unanimous conclusion but the 'resolution' by itself does not have the force of law. Admittedly, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no order has been passed on the basis of impugned resolution. Before giving effect to the resolution proper order is required to be passed, as on the basis of resolution no lease can be granted to any. person without proper order. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. ——-= Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1 200a.AI R SCW 208 2WP (S) No.2115 of 2009 (decided on 19-3-2010)