Xl—HC-78 m $111735 ‘- méstm (W) '$Warréet - - ‘ mmmaanéa . ‘ WW§WW gu§-zee5 Shri Vishnu Kwhfa, co mgel far "ma {aefifioineit ShrE VaShwcmT 5mgh Thakur, 60W. Advocai’e f5?" ‘fhe S'mTe/ r’espandanfs" Mal, 2 cmd E. Shri Pankaj Shrivasfm d, counsekéor' re£pmdanf NQ.3. Shri Rakash Pandey, chumsal for rasponden’r No.6. 3y i’his wrH’ pe'ri’rictn under Amda226/22? of ”Hag Cons‘rifufian 0f" Inc§ia ‘%'hz pe‘rh‘ionar has qyesfioned ?hra !ega_!iify, pmpr-iei'y ami carrecfnesé of fhe wder’ drrad 5—10-2004 (AnnexureuP/M) passed ‘ey fhe Direcfor ‘?anchaya+, respondam No.5, whereby The Direc‘mr Paé’lchaya'f rejecmd 'Erhe appfa! pre‘kr'red by ‘rha pefifioner againsf Thg arder of ”i'he COHecTor, Kwker damd 940-2001, dso Panchaya? _ Qe$oiufi0n da‘red 7~?~2001 mci ‘tha arder dai'ed §-1G-2001 passed by The CoHec’mr‘. Bria‘ fac‘fs §eadmg To fiiii’ag of ihis wri‘r pe‘riftbri ara ThaT Tha ¢e?i+i0nar is a regisi‘erad sociew mad fine casz of The pe?i?ia?zer £5 wry? we pefi?i0ner~ sacie'ry ms Egan formed far fha weWare GT’ fi'Ie membevrs 0f Tribéi ana’ They are engaged in fisher'ie‘s acrivh'ies wifhin “me was of Jamaal Panchayai Charamn. Om *Hme applica‘i‘ion of a‘he pef§1'iamer socieTy respsrxdenfs No.2 'i'o 4 cmsitierzd The appiim‘rion cf fhe pefifiener and gh/er} Kqerkheda pond for fishing acfivifias for a period 0% i0 years vide order damd 31S} NErch 1992, am! in pursuance A nne: Lira—W1). of The? "the ifion aer ‘ Xl-HC-78 masqfa’. 111200 311321 qaas’ (wig-61a) mawm ‘ ammésmmiw ‘ ' mmmma e-o?~ $Wanésr merem‘fer; oiso {he ge‘rmorer dagasifed iease maney far Mo years cmd cm agreemenf was exec Ned éy “rifle pa’l‘iTionar (Annexure—WZ). However, a” 9f a suddan, Vida order daTed 14—5—97vre$p0ndem N02 Ty fhai‘ iease has beer} chmceHéd, agaims’f 'i‘ guiT m fhe Cam”? of Civil Judge, Ciass- .r awed 30ft" Aprn 200i 5m of m pé'rifionar was allowed gmd du ing 141a pendency m“ fhe suf'f, femporary injuncfim was gramed m fav ur of The pe‘ri‘fioner againsf responden? No.2 K‘a 4, amd i1” was direcTa n01” TO inTat’lfare wiTh ‘E'he passagsiw of ‘rhe pati'rioner sccie‘ry. Afar 9mm” ef fampomry injunction ‘k‘ha pyri‘i'ioner socien‘y is doimg f mformed ‘M’Ie pe‘fi‘rioner secie Tha'f The pe‘i‘i’rioner filed a ch Ht Kcmker'. Vida Judgmen harieg agfivi‘ries. When ’rhe paw‘iones‘ sociefy approached responde T No3 for deposi‘fmg we lease amoun’r, ’rlweyl refused lo‘mke lease a cun’r, Therefore, The pelil’ioner saciely gnawed am appliccn‘ion befo fhe Clvil Ccur? where The suH was ~pendlng, amd "the Cour? af‘r r mnsiderlag applica‘rion, direcfed The perillaher “re dep‘osi‘l lease a oLmT in The CCD accoun‘r of ‘Fhe Courf. Accordingly, The peTiTianer d posiTed lease amoum‘. ReceipTs Thereof are 'AnnexureeP/5. FurTher case 6T The peTiTioner is TheT respondenT No.3 on expiry 6f he lease of The p TiTioner inviTecl an applica‘rion for granT of lease “for fisheries acTivi ies. The peTiTioner sacieTy submiTTed applicafions 0h 1,—6~2001 a 3-7—2001 and requesTed for 9mm of lease in Their fmour. 50 \\ a. l of The applicaTions is anhexuremP/V. \. i * r n p 138 m wm‘$ Illlnl-UII-II-Iy-nuuuluulnn-Ilylu.tu «1200 meim(m) mmm 311w ,__ 3,. Hewever', affer receiving a convanad on 7-7-2001 in Whith s‘ociefy and armfher appiica‘rio and 'E’ha‘pafii'ioneré, claim w: pe'rifiomr sociefy has m? clap years. Wher! +he pe+iTioner 50 appmached respondem“ N03 a but Thm was r10“? cansidered. ammm 3211mm WW‘§%W aswma §plica?’éons, Panchayw meemqg was Wm apphcafions, one of The p27Léfioner a af respondenf Naé was camiderad, Ls rejacfed or: +.he grbund 'I‘ha'i“ ‘rhe asi'had Reasa amaum‘ far a period of 3 dew came w kmw abau‘r 'rhis facw‘, ha hd informed abouw‘ daposh' of ameunf, which respsndem No.3 has me of feuse amaun‘r of The previous bzing c§efamfen ';*'r1a peTH’ic pe‘l‘tlfioraer has m1 aHgr-mfive $1‘m‘a 60V2mmenf and he 1 'E’herefcra, "Hm pefi‘fioeq is liqbig E §1c<va hacxrd iaamad cm; hse! for The parfies. Perusal of “fhé: nesoEu' whereby Tha pa?%‘h'omer's a; Pamhaya? shews Tha‘r appEica‘m {m accom'f 9f ?he ”kc? ",“ha? he pravicus lease "far a périac} 0f years, whareas, as per para—5.4 of fhe k pea‘iTiow, Thg paiTianer’s case ‘fhe civil éegrf and rgsgahden‘ Refum has bean “Wed on bahcdf of responden‘fs N63 and 6 in ’rioned 'rha‘f on accouh‘r of mh-daposi‘r {easa by fhe pahfionar, “{he pehTEener har’s daim wag rejecfed and fha remedy To filg a ravisiom beforafha ia£ m4: avaiiad aHemafh/e remetiy; , y h) he digmissad. km aimed 7&7‘2G0i (Amaxure—P/9) Lphca‘rion was rejecfed by Jan'pac} n cf ‘rha pehhcmer‘ was no? con$idere§ has rim” aieposi‘fad base amoun’r of #he fhaf he has depasii’ad iaase amounT 1h ' N03: refused j‘n accep”: m_,nmnm-§, i£¥7‘~":5Si2005 - 20,000 XI-HC-7B .émexut‘e—P/5 shaws %ha'r kms‘ diap‘oswed before 'rha Civil J pezfh‘iomr ugaim‘f respondanw IT is admi1’+ed po$§+ion camce§ied by rasporzden'm. Thé Mm we Civn Judgei mass—i was gramme? in favour 91‘ ‘H’ze‘ ‘ fisheria5' acTiviTies. UHEmaW 'eiy, “rha guid suh‘ was decread vEde mceipi‘ of amaun? deposifad shows +.’na+ %ease ,amoum,'whid up 'E'g 2000431 wcw dapwi‘md {Md 2-‘hea imd amoum' i2: mid ‘W frem the CaurT. ‘ Th'zrefera; m 7‘he ciw Pcmchaym‘ aiaTed 7—?-2001 ir {dwi‘riowar has n0? daposwed applicai'ian 0f fhe pe1'i1‘ionar far gram of lease “fer“ fishing righ‘r ih KharKheCwL pend was rejec’red a amaum from 1997w9$ m 2§OO-Ol was Jdge wher‘z ‘fhe civil suh‘ fikd by 'i'he was pending. than“ euriier lease of fha pew‘h‘ioner wag pefifioner ”Wed a civi! 5m? No.38—A/97 Z1 Kanker’, if: which *rempomry injum’fion pefifioner and Ion accaum of ma? 1‘he pafii'ianer wag caniinuing ih inosaess‘ion of fhe Tahk ih quesfitm far H ' judgmem dafed 3W” Apr“ 20C . I Furiher perusa! of Anmxura—P/§, which is Xerox capy af “fhe by fhe pa’rifiomer‘ in “rha CCD accoum‘r h commencad from The period 1997-98 Respondenw were parTy in Thai suif o be deposii‘ad afier “faking permissien :umsmncas, vewiufiori. of 'i‘he Junpad which if has been men'iioned iim‘? The 'iease amhun‘f was ihcarraci, as such an irraievanf and nonmexiyfeh‘r ghound. \ Xl-HC-78 m mqi$ nun-nu..."- W . '_,$ 9E . [uni-III. .I..... v II... mzoo mammw ammarm / 7 ’W'EWIH'VWWQI <; $w§wané¥r " / " :‘rim of alfemcrrive remeriy avaiiubie i’o m ihe firs‘r insfcmca preferred appeals d we Direc’mr, artd ”(hose appeak were Jafifioner approached +His Coum‘ {mder zc‘mn miEed by r2$pandem5 is wifhsm Therefam, i’r ammo? remady was available 1'0 fhz Wilizac! Figh’r of appeal and m o'e‘herwise, Pigh'? of alfermfivl rm? 0f klw, Therefm‘e, OH resgandem's has m farce. IE1 The resuh‘, i‘he pei‘iifion of The pei‘i’riomr deserves ‘ra be aiiowed and irhe same is aiiowé ‘Direc‘mr Panci-‘uayaT, Dapm’y Pahchaym" are quaghad. Rasp Nmw, coming *m‘i’he qua ’ihe pefi‘h'oner, The pai‘rioner before The Depu’ry Direc'mr at majec‘md, and uH§maTa§y, 1416 1 i'hg wr-if jurisdiC‘Hon. 'E‘ine ob} any force fw fhe reason Tha'f: 4 z pefé‘h'oner wa$ rejec‘rad on irreiavum md, n i3 limH’ed which is Vesfed wh‘h Thz: I be said 'fha’? efficacious aHemaTh/é pe'i‘i'kbnzr. The' pa?i1‘iower’ had aiready “Hm“? he remainad unsUccessful. Ever} z vemedy is *a‘he rma df‘ discrefion and #hese ground$ <3bjac?icn raised by d‘ The impugnad orders passed by The Direc‘iw and wresei'u‘riarz of Janpad 3ndem’rs are direc'ied ‘ro cangideh ihe J é. (1) ’fhe appligafian of 71"? and mn-exisfanf grq (2} revisiond J :urivdi ~a Cfio‘ ‘ éovemmenf. 133 W §qf$ E 200 anésmaa; (W) mm#ww $Wma p appHcafian of The pa’ri?%oner a1h~esh and Taka desisisn in uccardamce In View of j'his order, M‘.{W.)?. Nc.623/2005 smnds‘ disposed Parfies are en'fified far c<rfified copy of This order. ¢ Bar've X$§§§é§