IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} w. P. 227 No. éZ PETITIONER A \3 \° \ I ch A \r x RESPONDENTS x: 1 . yok— AWHcm/‘k; / r Bhakt Guha Nishad Swa—Sahayata Samooh, (Bhakt Guha Nishad Mahila Machhua Kalyan Samiti) Ghumka through President Fool Bai Nishad, W/o Dukhuram Nishad, aged abo11t 4O years, R/o Ghumka, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. President Jay Durga Machhua Sahkan' Samiti Maryadit, Kohangatola, through Rameshwar Nishad, R/o Village Kohangatola, Tahsil Balod District Durg (c.G.) Sarpanch Grampanchyat, Ghumka, Vikashkhand Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Ghumka, Balod, Village Secretary, Grampanchyat, Vikashkhand Balod, Tahsil District Durg (C.G.) l .. HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTTSGARH AT BILASPK }R WR 1T PETITION (227) T‘m 62 14 0f20 11 PETITIONER ‘ Bhakt Guha Nishad Swa Sahayata Samooh, Ghumka. VER S‘ IS State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WRET PETITION {2273 N0. 6215 0f2011 RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONS’I'ITUI'ION OF 1NDIA SB: Hah’hle Shri Satis'h K. Aanihotri. J. Shri Raj esh Kumar Jain, Advacate for the petitionat Shri Shashank Thakur, Pane} Lawyer fer {he Slaw/respondent No‘ 1 ‘ Present: ORDER ORA] , (Passed 011 19 day ofOctober, 2011) Since common facts and issue are involved in both the above writ petitions. thus‘ they are being disposed ofby this common order. Challenge in these petitions is to the legality and validity of the order dated 01102010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner. Raipur Division and the order dated 12102010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Additional Collector: Durg and further, direction to restore the order dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure P/11 and 12.10.2009 {Annemxre P11) respectively, passed by the Sub Divisional OEwer (R) {for short the SDO (1%)} Balodi District Durg. The facts, in nutshell, WE. (227) No. 6214/2011, are that the petitioner society is a registered society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1973. On 04.08.2008, the Gram Panchayat, Ghumka passed a resolution recommending allotment of the Ghumka Diversion on lease for fishing. However, later om PETH‘IONER : Bhakt Guha Nishad Swa Sahayata Samoo‘n, Ghumka. VER SI IS RESPONDENTS : State 0fChhattisgarh & Others. $9“ the Ghumka, Diversion was allotted to the respbndent N0. 2. Being aggieve¢ the petitioner flled an appeal before the SDO (R) Balod for semng aside the allotment of lease for Ghumka DiverSiOn in favour of the respondent. No; 2. The said appeal was allowed and allotment. gamed in favour of the respondent No. 2 was set aside vide order dated 28.05.2009 (Annexme P/l), The said order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the Deputy Collector, Durg, who, by order datedl2. 10.2010 (Annexure P/2) set aside the order passed by the SDO (R). Balod. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Court of Commissioner, Raipur Division, in a revision which was also rejected vide order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure P/B). The facts. in W.P.(227) 6215/201 l, is that on an application being invited by the Gram Panchayat. Ghumka. for allotment of a, pond namely ‘Bade Talab’ situated at. Khasra. No. 1072 area 1.90 hectare, on lease. Total four goups made application pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.05.2007. Without. considering the applications in proper manner, the respondent No. 5 was granted the lease for fishing. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the SDO (R) Balod, which was allowed vide order dated l2.10.2009 (Annexure P/l). The said order was challenged by the respondent No. 5 before the Deputy Collectori which was allowed by order dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P/Z). Thereagainst the petitioner preferred a revision before the Court of Commissioner, Raipur Division which was dismissed maintaining the order passed by the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure PB). §hn Jain: learned counsel appearing fQr tha petitioner submits that the order pa$sed by tha SDO (R) Ba10d§ in both the above writ petitions are perfectly valid and the Orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Commissioner, are erroneous: thus, they may be set aside and the order passed by the SDO (R) Baiod, may be restoredr On the other hands Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the Deputy Collector as well as the Commissionen have rigitly held that. the petitioner society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973 whereas the requirement of law is to be registered under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act Thus: the allotment of lease to others is perfectly valid, Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 0n perusal ofthe orders pa ssed by the Deputy Collector, as well as the Commissioner: it is evident that the petitioner-gout) is a group registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Actt 1973 whereas, according to the circular dated 24.03.2003, issued by the State, preference is to be given to the goups/societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. 1t is an admitted position that the petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 and not under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1960i in order to have preferential rigits for grant of fishing rigJitst The private respondents, who have been granted lease for fishing, are registered societies under the provisions of the Cooperative 4 37 Societies Act, 1960. Thus, the orders impugled herein, does not suffer om any illegality warranting imerference by this Comm 9. The petitioner has further not pointed cut. any jurisdictional error, infumity or ixregularity in the impugned orders. Thus: this Court, Ln exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia, is not inclined to interfere with the impugied order which is legal, just and proper. 10. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak {D} Thr. LES. & Ors. v. M’angesle Rajaram Wagle & Otherf, observed as under: "2I...There have been several. ofher instances in which daferenr High Courrs have passed orders in exercise of power under Ariicles 226 0r 227 of the Consfilutz'on of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicared by rim Cami in .s’everaf decisions 07: [he exercixe of thatpower. We hope and trust that infimu‘e the High Caurts waut'd keep in View lhe limitations of cerii'arari jurisdiction/ swervisary jurisdicz‘ion and reji‘ain jrom deciding rhe writ petirions filed under Article 226 or pelilions/hppiicalians filed Wider Article 227 of the Constitution as If [hey are adjudicaling appeals filed agaim'l the ordeits of the lower courts or other judiciab/quasijudiciai bodieS/nulhorities. " 1‘1. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Sheiiy & Another v. Rojendra Shankar Parilz. 12. In View ofthe foregoing and applying 1he well settied principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the writ petition is dismissed. Amit SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge -M ‘ 261mm sew 1414 2 (2010) a soc 329