l § v‘ t!” I ‘ i § y}; ’E‘HE HON’BLE HIGH CQURT 9F CHgHATTISGARH AT r §ILASPUR i WP. c. N0. @NM OF éo11 @TITIONER /' sank Ram Gupfta S/o late Ramu ‘iQQi‘QSTITUTION OF INDIA x PraSad Gupta, ag§ed about— 41 years, R/o hear Pagana Bus LStand, (5 Ratanpur, Talsil— kota, Dist’c. Biléspur ‘ I (C’GJ. i VERSUS aggmmmms /. 1. State‘offcmttisgarh through Secretary, Agricukure (Fisheries) Department, . D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (CG). 2. / Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, Bilaspur , Distt. Bilaspurr (C.G.). /*3. Caiiector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G i/4 Chief ‘ Municipal Officer, Nagar ?anchaya:, Rataripur, Distt. Bilaspur i (CG) :\%§§%ET PETI’HGN' UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :éBILASPUR i i J ! WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 2434 OE 2011 Salik Ram Gupta Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petltron under Artlcle 226 of the Constrtutlon of Indra) Srngle Bench Hon ble Shh Satlsh K Agnlhotrl J Present .— Shn M K Smha Advocate for the petmoner ShrIAJay Dwrvedt Dy Govt Advocate forthe State PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ORDER gORAL) (Passed on this 06‘“ day of May, 201 1) By the instant petition, the‘ petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nagar Panchayat, Ratanpur, to permit, the petitioner to take out fishes from the pond in question, as the same had grown on account of fish seeds sown by the petitioner before the same was allotted to some other person The brief facts in nutsheii as prejected by the petitioner are that pursuant to the notification dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure P-1ZA) for auction of the ponds in question,,_the petitioner was granted two ponds namely Ratneshwar & Ramban ‘for pisciculture and the petitioner planted fish seeds in the pond. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/— on 09.08.2010, as per the terms and conditions of the auction. Thereafter, on 06.09.2010, twenty three ponds were granted to other persons who were higher bidders. The petitioner informed to the respondent No.4 on 20.09.2010 about putting 3k}: t of fish seeds in Mncerned pond. Thereafter, he made a request on 01 122010 to take out fishes from the pond in question till 30 06 2011 3 ‘ executed, the Nagar Panchayat took a decision on 06.09.2010 (Annexure P4) to re—auction twenty three ponds including the ,I i pond in question to fetch higher price. 6. The resoiution‘dated 06.09.2010 was not, ques!tioned and thereafter pursuant to the resolution, a notificationgwas issued , i on 29 11 2010 inviting appiications from all the oahdidates for grant of lease of twenty three ponds Including the ponds in question The auction had also taken place on 15 12 2010 lt appears that the petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 29.11.2010. .Thereafter, a representation was made on 01.12.2010. 'The impugnedgorder/ dated 27.04.2011 was passed on consideration of the representation dated 01.12.2010 On perusal: of the impugned order, this Court does not find any irregularity, as it is evident that the petitioner has taken steps in putting the fish seeds and making alleged. investments, if any, Without finalization of the auction and Without execution of the agreement between the parties Thus the petitioner has taken steps unauthorisedly and illegally before the lease was granted properly in favour ofthe petitioner. Hence, the I is“: respondent authorities cannot be faulted with and as such the impugned, order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality“ 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove there is no merit in this case and petition is accordingly dismissed A ‘ I . Sd/- ,xsrmsa K. ANGNIHORI Judge ‘\ ‘ a i. \' 4 Ashok ,