fc. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRt DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Petitioner Versus Writ Petition (cl No. 705 of 2011 Jai Maa Sonai Rupaie Swatya Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Gram-Khatti, Registered No.27 wtth the Co-operative Society under the Act. Through ite President-Johat Ram Kewat, S/o Shri Derha Ram Kewat, Age 63 years, Village Khatti,' Tahsil & Distriet Mahasamund (CG) Respondents 1 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Director, Panchayat, DKS Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Commisstoner, Raipur Division, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Mahasamund (CG) Chief Executhre Officer/President Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) Prathamik Malsaya Sahkari Sammittee Maryadtt, Gram-Khatti, Registered No.427 with the Co- operative Society under the Act. Village Khatti, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) Present: Shri JA Lohani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AS Kachchawaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. Smt. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the caveator. ORAL ORDER (7th February, 2011) Per Dhirendra Affshra. J In response to the tender notice issued by Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund, the petitioner andrespondent No.5 applied fbr grant of tease of the irrigation pond for a period of five years. The Agriculture Standing Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund, unanimousty resohred to grant lease for flshing right for a period of seven years in favour of respondent No.5 vide Annexure P/3. The petitioner's appeal against the order of Annexure Pi3 was allowed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 7.10.2010 and it was held Uiat tease of the subject tank should be given to the petitioner society. However, the revision preferred by respondent hto.5 against the order of the Additional Collector has been altowed by the impugned order of Annexure P/1 . ,^^3-^ ^ i^ % t" 'Sks^'^f^ % u1 ..» 2. By this petition, the petttioner has prayed for setBng aside the impugned prder of the Commissioner and has further prayed for direction to the respondent State to amend the New Flshery Policy of Annexure P/5 and "rts Condition No.3.3,4.1 and 5 in respect of altotment ofthe reservoir/pond. 3. Learned counsel for the petifloner submte that the tank in question has been given on lease to respondent No.5 only on Uie ground that respondent No.5 is an old society as per Clause 3.3 of the new Fishery Policy notified on 24.4.2003 (Annexure P/5), ignoring the fact that the petitioner society based at Village-KhatU has members belonging to below poverty line. The very purpose of registraUon of the petitioner society is lost if priority is to be given to the old societies in-the matters of grant of tease of village ponds for fishery right. The petitioner society was registered aftBT due verificalion as per Clause 4(1) of the new Fishery Policy on 29.3.2005 vkte Annexure P/2. However, no lease of any tank has been grarited in favour of the petitioner society. Considering the above facts, the Additional Colledor vide order of Annexure P/3 had altowed the appeal of the petitioner. However, the well reasoned order of the Collector has been set aside by the impugned order only on account of Clause 2.4 and 3.3 of the New Fishery Poltoy ofthe State Govt. The New Fishery Policy, particularly Clause 2.4 and 3.3, is not in consonance with Clause 4.1 ofthe same Policy and therefore, it deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Indira Tripathi, tearned counsel fbr the respondent No.5 appearing on caveat, and Shri AS Kachchawaha, teamed Dy. Advocate Generat forthe State, would argue Uiatthe impugned order is strictly in accordance with the New Rshery Policy of the Stete Govt. as respondent No.5 being the oldest society had a preferential right for grant of tease, as compared to the petitioner society herein in the area. 5. Heard leamed counset for the parties. 6. Indisputably, in response to the tender noUce, apart from the petitioner, respondent No.5 was also the applicant. It is not in dispute ttat the petitioner society was registered on 29.3.2005 (Annexure P/2), whereas respondent No.5 society was registered on 30th January, 1993. The Department of Agriculture (Fisheries), Govt. of Chhattisgarh, vide tts order dated 24.4.2003, supereeding the earlier order/directions, notified New Fishery Policy regarding grant oftanks on lease for fishery purposes. Clause 2.1 provides that ttie ponds/tanks are to be given on lease on priority basis to 1 E w ^' I! \<, 3 local fishermen and ftey are not to be auctioned. Whereas Clause 2.4 prescribes that Uie local registered Fishery Co-operative Societtes situated within 8 km of any pond/tank shall be entitled for priority in obtalning lease. However.wherethereis morethan oneappticantofthesamekicalarea, the priority is to be given to the oldest society. Clause 3.3 ateo provides that where there is more than one applicarrt of lease, in that case, the oldest Fishery Society should be given leaae. Whereas Clause4.1 prescrib^that where the tante are available after granfing lease - maximum 0.50 hectare in case ofvltlage tankand 4 hectare in respect of irrigatton tank - in that case, more than one Fishery Societies may be registered after <*tainjng hk> Objection Certifieate from the Fishery Department. Clause 4.2 clearty provldes that while registering new Co-operaUve Societies, it should be ensured that only those fishermen, wrtio are engaged in actuat flshing and domicile of Chhattisgarh, are members, and below poverty Dne would not be a basisforregistration ofCo-operative Societies. 7. Thus, from pemsal of the New Fishery Policy, it is manifestly ctear that where there is more than one applftant for grant of tease of any pond/lank for fisherypurposes, in thatcase, ttte older Fishery Co-operative Society is to be given preference. 8. It is settled law that correctness or otherwise of any policy of the State Govt. cannot be subjected to judicial review and the same can be interfered by the Court only if such decision is shown to be patently arbttrary, discriminatory or malafide. 9. In the instant case, Uie Fishery Policy of the State Govt.to giye priority to the older Co-operative Societies in tfte matters OT grant of tease of any pond/tank for flshery purposes where there are more than one applteant cannot be faulted on the grounds taken by the petitioner herein. 10. On ttie basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of theopinion that the order of Annexure A/1 passed by the Commissioner allowing the appeal of respondent No.5 and conflrming e resolution of the ^ricutture Standing Committee granUng lease ofthesubjecttankto respondent No.5, isstrietly In accordance with the New Fi'shery Poticy of ths SteteGovt. There is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- idraM Judge Sd/- R.N. Ghandrakar Judge