;(^-L^^I^ALrT^VAT\,"^-\J^-<^.^A^-\^\/' ^" ^'''®Sfe*©M'- lyyE^'^s^yt'.t- 'liEeHiahCourtofChhattisflarhatBilasDUr /2008(S.B.) ^ TuiaRamMandavi Writ Petition (C)?No. r^^r^l'\./'^^^/^L^^>'L/^^r'^^.T^J~C^^. AgeaboutSSyear^S/pKodyR^ R/o Dhanesara, P.S. Nartiarpur, Tahsil-Narharpur, Distt. Kanker(C.G.) President ofAdjvasi ViKas Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dhanesara, Tahsil - Narharpyr, Distt.Kanker(C.G.) ' y VERSUS RiSPONDENTS : ^.^^^^S^ Through the Secretary, Co-operativeSoeieties, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipyr(C.G.) ^ i ^2. Managjng Director j Maryadit, Raipur; Distt. Rajpur (C.G.) i / - :Z:3.-, llmranKlian';.^:1.,'' •.•^:.,'^ /\gedabc^4Syeats^^^^^^^,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ PariyojanaSanchaiankarta.lDudhavayalashay] Nagari; Distt.Dhamtari (C.G.) I WRIT PETITION UNDER^RTICl-E 226GF •THE ! CONS1"ITUTI@N OF lNt)IA ta r ^t^llu/^^;*^'^. •^^•^K^^''^" W>"SKv-:^ Petitioner H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.2623 of 2008 Tula Ram Mandavi Versus Resoondents WR!T PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF !ND!A State Govt. of Chhattisaarh & Others li. ;SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the StatsA'espondent No Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent Shri Suni! Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.3. (Passed on 30 day of June, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the legality and valiaity of the order dated 27/03/2008 passed by the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari iVlatsya Mahasangh, Maryadit, Raipur, Distrsct-Raipur, whereby fsshing right granted In favour of respondent No. 3 was renev/ed for a furt'ner period of five years, on the sole ground that renewai could not be done during the ban period on account of enforcement of code of concsuct in cas® of eiection in Cooperative Societies. On t'ne Derusa! of the terms of code of conduct (Annexure P-12), it is fbund that inter alia there is ban on new construction. acquis'rtion or saie of new proDerties. Other provisions are with regard to conduct of elections and transfer of empioyees during the period. In the case on hand, it is not disputable that the nev/ lease for fishmg was not granted for the first time. It was a case of renewai as the initial lease granted eariier came to an end on 31s' f-ilarch, 2008, Accordinalv. on 27/3/2008, it was renewed t'or the further period of 5 years. The petitioner is not challenging the renewal of Sease on anv other around. 3. Fot-the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case. Thus, the Detition is dismissed. 1 'SdA Satish K. Agnihotri ! Judge »1