THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6503 OF 2006 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Both the counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission. 2. The order passed by the District Panchayat Officer dated 24-03-2006 in favour of the fourth respondent in the appeal filed is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3. By passing a resolution on 26-10-2005, the second respondent resolved to confer leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner-sangham for raising and catching the fish on the upset price fixed by the District Panchayat Officer. Accordingly, Under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.343 dated 10-04-1978, read with Section 56 and 80 of the Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’), leasehold rights were granted in favour of the petitioner- sangham allotting lothukunta tank for raising and catching the fish. The fourth respondent-society after knowing the resolution, dated 26-10-2005 passed by the Gram Panchayat, and grant of lease in respect of the said lothukunta tank for 2004- 05 for an amount of Rs.2,500/-, filed W.P.No.2305/2006 seeking declaration of the action of the respondents in not granting fishing rights in its favour as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the instructions issued by the Government from time to time and for issuing a consequential direction to the respondents, particularly, Gram Panchayat, to lease out the rights in respect of the said lothukunta tank as per the upset price fixed under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj, dated 10-04-1978. The present petitioner is not a party to the said writ petition. On contest being made by the Gram Panchayat and on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the fisherman Cooperative Society, this court disposed of the said writ petition directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. In obedience to the said orders, the District Panchayat Officer entertained the appeal filed by the fourth respondent and issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the leasehold rights granted in favour of the petitioner-sangham pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, with a direction to the Panchayat Secretary to enter into an agreement with the fourth respondent-society on their remitting a challan for the upset price fixed at Rs.6,500/-. Further, the Deputy Director of Fisheries was requested to assess the value of the fish seed purchased and sown in the tank by the petitioner sangham and issue certificate to the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Lothukunta, within a week to make payment of the compensation to the petitioner sangham. Assailing the correctness of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri N. Subba Reddy contends that once the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to grant leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner sangham in respect of Lothukunta tank for raising and catching the fish, the District Panchayat Officer cannot cancel or annul the said resolution, since it can be done only by the Government under Sub-section 3 of Section 246 of the Act. In other words, the District Panchayat Officer will not have jurisdiction to nullify the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat granting leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner sangham. 5. Learned Government Pleader as well as Sri D. Govardhana Chari submits that once this court directed the District Panchayat Officer in the earlier writ petition to decide the issue after giving due notice to the parties, in accordance with law, necessarily, he has to pass orders implementing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.343 dated 10-04-1978 and also G.O.Rt.No.546 dated 25-03-1999. They further contend that once the Gram Panchayat participated in the enquiry before the District Panchayat Officer, it cannot question the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer on the point of jurisdiction. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in EGUVAKAMMAKANDRIGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, S.R. PURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR AND OTHERS considered the provisions of sub-section 3 and Section 246 of the Act, which provides and enables the District Collector to make a report to the Government that in his opinion immediate action is necessary to suspend a resolution on any of the grounds referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 246 of the Act and the Government may, by order in writing, suspend the resolution. Thus, the power of the Government to cancel the resolution or suspend the same, in case of urgency, is not in dispute. Accordingly, this court held that the District Collector has to make an appropriate report to the Government and the Government may, in its discretion, examine the matter and consider the validity of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, after considering the said report. In view of the same, the Government has to annul the resolution under Section 246 of the Act on the report submitted by the District Panchayat Officer, but not the District Collector. 7. It is also relevant to note that under Rule 3(b) of G.O.Ms.No.343 PR & RD, dated 10-04-1978, envisages the Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the fishery rights in favour of fourth respondent-society on the upset price fixed. Before fishing rights can be auctioned by the Gram Panchayat, the executive authority of the Gram Panchayat shall make an application to the District Panchayat Officer for furnishing the particulars of the revenue on such lease of the minor irrigation tank and other tanks, other sources during the past five years and to fix up an upset price Under Rule 2 and that after District Panchayat Officer fixing the upset price, the Gram Panchayat shall lease out the fishery rights in favour of the fisherman cooperative society without public auction by intimating the upset price fixed. Only in case the fisherman cooperative society has not responded to take the leasehold rights on the upset price fixed, the Gram Panchayat can proceed further. The Government while issuing G.O.Rt.No. 546, PR and RD (Pts.IV) Department, dated 25-03-1999, directed the Gram Panchayat concerned to lease out the rights of fishing tanks to the fishermen cooperative societies of the local areas without public auction and also directed the Commissioner to take action accordingly. 8. In view of the same, if the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for leasing out the property in favour of the sangham other than the fishermen cooperative society, the District Panchayat Officer can only submit a report pointing out the illegality committed by the Gram Panchayat in passing the said resolution and it is for the Government to consider the said resolution and take appropriate action. Without resorting to the same, the District Panchayat Officer cannot himself assume the jurisdiction and cancel the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and can direct the Gram Panchayat to enter into the agreement with the fourth respondent is without jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the District Panchayat Officer is directed to forthwith submit a report to the Government within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that on such submission, the Government shall pass appropriate orders for implementation of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.343, Panchayat Raj (Sam.I) Department, dated 10-04-1978, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondents. 10. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. Dated: 06-04-2006 Rns.