IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.3822 of 2011
with
I.A. No.2154 of 2011
Mahagama Anchal Matsyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Ltd.,
a cooperative society, Godda ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Cooperatives, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda
4. District Fisheries Officercum Chief Executive Officer, Department of
Fisheries, Godda
5. Swawlambi Matashyajivi Sahyog Samity,
Mahagama, Godda ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s S.C. (Mines)
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
th
03/Dated: 19 July, 2011
1. Upon consent by the applicant as well as the counsel for the
respondents, interlocutory application is also taken up for hearing.
2. Having heard the counsel of both sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is some settlement of 34
tanks in favour of the petitioner of Writ Petition(C) No.3822 of 2011 vide
order dated 19.05.2011. It also appears that further necessary amount has
also been deposited by the original petitioner cooperative society. The
applicant of the interlocutory application is also similarly situated another
cooperative society and is also in search of such settlement of tanks, and
therefore, he is vitally interested in the outcome of the writ petition, hence
it is joined as respondent No.5 and that is because leave to I.A. is allowed
and disposed of.
3. Necessary amendment shall be carried out in red ink in Writ
Petition (C ) No.3822 of 2011.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that
in pursuance of the policy floated by the respondent for allotment of the
tanks in question petitioner applied for allotment and ultimately as per
Annexure5 dated 19.05.2011, allotment of 34 tanks were made in favour
of the petitioner cooperative society. Necessary amount has also been
deposited by the petitioner with the respondent State authorities. It is
2.
further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there are several
numbers of the petitioner cooperative society and they have been further
allotted these tanks and necessary seeds for cultivation of the fishes have
also been purchased by the members of the petitioner society. Thus, after
allotment of 34 tanks in favour of the petitioner, there is further allotment
by the cooperative society to its members. It is further submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that some dissatisfied soul has applied to the
Government authorities complaining several things and it has been
entertained privately by the respondents and a final decision has been taken
by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda for cancellation of the settlement of 34
tanks without assigning any reason and without giving any show cause
notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of making a
representation to the respondents. Whatever stated in the complaint
cannot be treated as a gospel truth. Had an opportunity been given to the
petitioner, they would have pointed out to the respondents that no illegality
has been committed by the respondents in granting of 34 tanks to the
petitioner society. Abruptly, an order has been passed at Annexure6 dated
06.07.2011
by District Fisheries Officer that he has been directed by Deputy
Commissioner, Godda to cancel the allotment followed by consequential
order at Annexure7 dated 06.07.2011. Thus both these orders i.e.
Annexure6 as well as Annexure7 should be set aside mainly for the reason
that there is no legality in the allotment of the tanks in question and even
assuming that there is irregularity, there is no show cause given to the
petitioner so that petitioner might explain the case to the respondents. No
inquiry was conducted and the complain was presumed to have been
correct and the order of cancellation of the allotment of 34 tanks has been
passed on file by Deputy Commissioner, Godda which is sheer arbitrariness,
as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner and hence also the orders at
Annexure6 and 7 deserve to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the orders at
Annexure6 and 7 have been passed by respondent authorities on the basis
of complaint received and on file a decision has been taken to cancel the
allotment of 34 tanks. The counsel for the respondents State has kept the
original file present before the Court which has been perused by this Court.
It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that if there is any
3.
defect or irregularity in passing the orders at Annexure6 and 7, the same
will be rectified.
6. I have heard the counsel for the newly joined respondent which
is an intervenor by I.A. No.2154 of 2011. Learned counsel for the newly
joined party submitted that upon his complain this decision has been taken
by the respondent State of cancellation of the allotment of 34 tanks in
favour of the petitioner mainly for the reason that there was illegality in
grant of 34 tanks to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel
for the newly added respondent that a policy decision has been taken by
the respondent State vide memo No.1410 dated 29 th June, 2011 vide
paragraph5 onwards and therefore, the allotment of 34 tanks ought to be
cancelled and rightly a decision has been taken by Deputy Commissioner,
Godda, therefore no illegality has been committed while passing the order
at Annexure6 and the consequent order at Annexure7 by the respondents.
7. Having heard the counsel of both sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case I hereby quash and set aside the order passed
by District Fisheries Officer, Godda dated 06.07.2011 (Annexure6) as well
as of same date Annexure7 mainly for the following facts and
circumstances:
(i) The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under
Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. Petitioner had applied for
allotment of water tanks for the purpose of fisheries as per policy floated by
respondent which is at Annexure1 to the memo of petition which is dated
18th January, 1992.
(ii) Upon proper verification of all the aspects stated in the policy
decision at Annexure1, 34 water tanks have been allotted to the petitioner
cooperative society by the respondent State authorities vide order dated
19.05.2011 (Annexure5 to the memo of petition).
(iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid allotment of 34 water tanks
necessary payment was also made by the petitioner to the respondent State
authorities to the tune of Rs.38,000/. This amount has been received and
the receipt whereof is Annexure4 to the memo of petition.
(iv) It appears that the petitioner, being a cooperative society there
are several members and to its members these water bodies have been
further allotted by the petitioner society and they have also purchased
4.
necessary seeds for the purpose of fisheries. Thus, there is further
execution of the contract after the allotment of 34 water bodies to the
petitioner cooperative society. Thus petitioner has changed its position,
after allotment of water tanks.
(v) It appears that thereafter some dissatisfied soul has applied to
the respondent Government authorities making certain complaints and
without holding any inquiry upon that complaints order has been passed by
Deputy Commissioner, Godda for cancellation of the allotment made in
favour of the petitioner. This is not permissible in the eye of law.
(vi) Original file has been presented before this Court by the
counsel for the respondent State. Looking to this file it appears that upon
complaint received from the newly joined respondent No.5 Secretary of
Cooperative Department, Jharkhand has passed the order to hold inquiry on
05.07.2011, but, it appears that the dissatisfied soul must be in too much
hurry and therefore, without holding any inquiry and without waiting for
the report to come in the hands of high ranking respondents Officer, a
decision has been taken to cancel the allotment of 34 water tanks. This is
an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents and hence also the orders
at Annexure6 and 7 deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(vi) It further appears that no reasons have been assigned in the
impugned order at Annexure6 which makes the order full of arbitrariness.
Moreover, no notice has been given to the petitioner before cancellation
otherwise petitioner would have pointed out to the respondents about his
case and the legality in allotment of 34 water bodies to the petitioner
society.
(vii) The so called new policy dated 19th May, 2011 cannot be relied
upon, as this reason was never given in impugned order at Annexure6.
Moreover, it is subsequent in point of time because allotment of 34 ponds is
dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure5).
8. As a cumulative of the facts and circumstances, it appears that
there is a grosset violation of the principles of natural justice after
allotment of 34 water tanks in favour of petitioner, amount has also been
deposited by the petitioner and thereafter there is a further allotment to the
members of the petitioner society. By the petitioner society, necessary seeds
have also been purchased for fisheries purpose and upon the complain by
5.
somebody i.e. respondent No.5, whole decision has been taken without
holding any inquiry and without giving any notice. I, therefore, quash and
set aside the decision taken by the respondent State authorities of
cancelling the allotment of 34 tanks in favour of the petitioner which is
dated 06.07.2011 Annexure6 as well as dated 06.07.2011 at Annexure7
to the memo of petition.
9. Liberty is reserved with the respondent State authorities to take
any action against the petitioner to violating the law, rules, regulations and
Government policy applicable to the petitioner and at least after following
the principles of natural justice.
10. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of with a cost of
Rs.5000/ to be paid by the State authorities to the petitioner within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is allowed with cost.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
NKC