^^' ^l^^ ^•'y..--"NI J^ c- - F .'• \°-'u' <-'' ^'y- ^BrfoRE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ? w.p. fO NO. C^W^- of 2011 ^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS --Hem Kumari wife of Daias Kumar, aged about 28 years, President, Aamratan Mahila Swa Sahayata. Samuh, R/o. Village Piperdula, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^-1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Panchayat Awam Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.), 3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.), 4, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.), 5. Chesbai, wife of Panchram, President, Jai Man Santoshi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh, R/o. Village Piperdula, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'V "'sw^/ PE' •LjTrs.i-r r''^ii??T1 r^T? ^i-ri^Ai^TTRrzAi?"?^ AT'i^'n ASPTTI f^ I^TFi v-/i /Ut^i \^'~ ^^n's~i/-\ i i JL~?^TM.i\n /~^ i oii ..^-iL^rijr WRH' PETITION {0 No. 6707 of2011 Hem Kiimari, RESPONDENTS State of Ctshatsisssih & Others. WMT PE'HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSITTUIION QFJNDIA SB: Hon'We SIiri Satisii K. AeniiiBtri,.) Present: Shri R.Pradhan- Advocate tbrthe petittoner. 01^—^Tt T.-7' T?1L-^-3-—; Tt^—..'?T „-......„ P.._-il-,. C1'..< ../—-.—-.—J.-—-'.. acn r.^.i^nauun, raHci i^'(iwycr IOT iris iSiais/rcsponuG-nis. O R 1) E R /T>n""^.-I -.-^ 1-^th/-i"-.^.+-^T"^T^-^.U.s^ />/U 1 \ ^J"<S5&^U vjii J.iJ ud^' yi. l^i U v dlA^Ci, ^Vii^ 1. Challenee in tfais oetit.ion is to the order dated 03.10.2011 lAnnexiire P/l') oassed bv the Couimissioner. B^aiour Divisioii. Raiour m Ar'neal No. 486/A-89 Yaar 2010-11 wherebv the aooesl ofthe oetitioner a.sainst.the order dated 03.01.2011 ('Amiexiire P/2'i riassed bv Additional Collector. in Aooeal No. 21/A-89 Year 2009- 10. v?as dismissed. coiifirmine the order nassed bv the Additional eoilector. L'e%tued cousisei 8ppe^.riiig for the pstitioaier subiiuts th^t ft. p^.p^r piiblication was made ior invitius: ^.pDlic^t.ions fbr s'ant. Qf fishing -^, --^-^--„--..„--.— ..-- „ k^ ~~- ———~^i rights of Piperdiila pond, by the Chief Executive OfBcer, Janpad F'anchavat. Bilaiearh to eiinble a.11 the eliable eandidates to narticioate in the oroceedinss of allotaent of fishine rishts. Thereaft.er. a resoliition w^s na-ssed aliott.ing the fishing risd'its t.o the resDondent No. 5. 3, Being agerieved. the Detitioner oreferred aa aoDeal befnre Additional Coilector. Balodabazar. The Addifional Collector. cancelled tlie resollrtion of ftie resoondent No. 4 wlierebv the resoondent No. 5 was allotted the fishing rishts and fiirther. direct.edto iaitiate fi'esh Droceedinss for aliotment. offishing risfats. The sa.id order of the AdditioGal Collector wa.s challensed before the Coramissioner. RaiDur Division. The Commissioner unholdine B* —-^^ ';' i^ ; 1 'vSy^ •' h / fhe order r>a.sse" bv the Adfutionai Coiiector. dismissed the anr'ea.1 ofthe netitioaer. Thus. this "etition. Heard leamed couasel aonearing for the oetitioner. oenised the Dleadinss and doGiiments a.ooended thereto, Oit oen-isal ofthe documents. it anoeare that the ha.ving considered a.11 tiie facts ofthe case. the Addi'tioBal Couector has riehtlv come to the conclusion that for wa.nt. of Droner Biibiication in the newspapers mviting appiicauons, the resolution to pass order in fa.vour ofresDoncIem No. 5 wa.s illesal and a.s such it was cancelled and fiirther it wa.s direfc'fed to initiate fi'esh c'roceedinss for aUotment of fishins riehts, Thereafter. the Comaiissioner also affirmed the order oa.ssed bv the Coilector. When there was no oroiier onoonuni.tv TO all tlie eiisibie candidates to Darticioate m the nroceedines for allotment of fishins riAts. it was ripiitiv decided to oua.sh tho entire allotment oroceedia.es aad to iaitiate a fresh Droceedmgs for allotment of fisiiios risbt.s bv aving orc'Der oublicity tliroiisfa newsDaDers also. The eariier Droceedinss ibr aliotmeat ainounts to violation ofArticle 14 nfthe Coiistitirtion of Indis. The Detitioiier has fiirther not ooinfed out anv iijrisdictional en-or. infiniutv or irreaiiaritv ia fhe hTinugned orders. Thus. Ihis Court. iu exereise ofite oower under Article 226/227 ofthe CoD.st.it.irtion of' Tndia. is not iaclined to intsrfere with the imousned order which is legaL iust. and orooer. fSee : Abdv-l Razak (D} Thr. L.RJS, & Ors. 'l? ^..'f/Tysf?^'?^ J^ninyr?yyi i^/rncr]^ /^- (~)f^?£>yv^ ^J^nliyi .<?^»"I.'/?w s^^£'tl~i? f^r y. -ivjt^^ft^VsJft ^^^fjf^t:'^i-cs f.r wi.^frw' s^- ^^'e,fs-^fij ^ t~/f evS^'s-rs-t s^irs.j^^^iit »u^riC'£6y IL^ ,'i •vi^'.T/ft^y-s'l^ J^ rf^/^-s^^'fii'^s \^j^/y-w£*/T*' T-f^ii~TS'L\ ^: l..'iv",.Tte^{ y, ^.^^Jv^n^lt i.* t^tf-i.frtiTf^ij A ^f-S.iSr^. Tn view ofthe foregning and applying the well settled principles of law t.o the facts ofthe case on hand. the writ oetition is disniissed^ Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge