HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION C 2890 of 2009
Prathmik Matsya SahakariSamiti Maryadit & Others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
! Shri M K Sinha
^ Shri N N Roy
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 15/09/2010
: JUDGEMENT
ORDER ORAL
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash
the order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by
the respondent No. 3, Additional Collector,
Gariyaband whereby the Revenue Revision Case
No./03/B-121, year 2007-2008, has been dismissed
upholding the resolution dated 10.09.2007, passed by
the respondent No. 5, Gram Panchayat, Arand.
2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent
No. 5, Gram Panchayat Arand, issued a
notification/publication on 08.09.207 for allotment
of Government pond namely `Ganjha’ on lease for
fishing as per policy of the government. In
response, four applications including that of the
petitioner and the respondent No. 7, were received.
A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat,
allotting the lease of the pond for fishing to the
respondent No.7.. According to the petitioner, the
said proposal was not in accordance with law, and
accordingly, against the said resolution, the
petitioner preferred a revision before the
respondent No. 3, praying for rejection of the
resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The said
revision was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2009
(Annexure P/1). However, in the meantime, the said
resolution was stay ed by the Additional Collector,
vide order dated 11.07.2007.
3. On perusal of the impugned order dated
14.05.2009 (Annexure P/1), it is evident that the
respondent No. 3 has held that the petitioner had
not filed certified copy of the resolution dated
10.09.2007 and further, all the applicants who
participated for grant of lease, were not arrayed as
party, thus, the revision was not maintainable and
the same was dismissed. Consequently, the stay
granted vide order dated 11.07.2007 was also
vacated.
4. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, pursuant to the resolution, no specific
order of allotment of pond on lease to the
respondent No. 7 has been passed. The resolution
cannot be subjected to judicial review as it is
simple minutes of the proceeding.
5. The further contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Gram Panchayat may be
directed to pass an order, is without any basis as
in a writ jurisdiction, where no specific order has
been passed on the basis of resolution, as
aforestated, as the resolution is only the record of
the proceedings of the meeting of Gram Panchayat, no
directions can be issued by this Court. The Gram
Panchayat is competent to withdraw or to pass
subsequent resolution modifying or withdrawing the
earlier one. In view of that, no direction can be
issued against the Gram Panchayat as prayed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. This Court, in Khatbadan Singh Parihar v. State
of C.G. & Others1, held that `resolution’ is an
expression of the opinion of the members who have
come out to a unanimous conclusion but the
`resolution’ by itself does not have the force of
law.
7. The Supreme Court, in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr.2, held that the
resolutions are mere guidelines and not controlled
by the statutory provisions.
8. In the instant case, after passing of the
resolution for allotment of Government pond namely
Ganjha on lease to the respondent No. 7, the
petitioner preferred a revision before the
respondent No. 3, without there being any specific
order or execution of any lease between the Gram
Panchayat and the respondent No. 7 which was
ultimately dismissed by the respondent No. 3. Thus,
in absence of any specific order, the resolution, as
aforestated, cannot be challenged.
9. Applying the well settled principles of law to
the facts of the case on hand, the writ petition is
devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order asto costs.
JUDGE
