Authorities must reconsider fishery lease claims after examining material evidence on cooperative societies’ working areas.

The petitioner, a registered cooperative society, challenged the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, affirming the Collector’s order dated 24.06.2022 and the Agriculture Standing Committee’s resolution dated 28.08.2019 concerning the grant of a ten-year fishery lease for Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner contended that the water bodies fell within Gram Panchayats Arsi and Dodki, which were within its working area, and relied upon a letter dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, Fisheries, stating that Jalashaya No. 1 fell within Gram Panchayat Arsi and Jalashaya No. 2 within Gram Panchayat Dodki.

Initially, the Agriculture Standing Committee had proposed allotment in favour of respondent No. 2, but by resolution dated 28.08.2019 cancelled that proposal and recommended allotment in favour of respondent No. 1.

The petitioner’s challenge was initially dismissed on limitation, but the Commissioner later remanded the matter to the Collector for consideration on merits. Upon remand, the Collector rejected the petitioner’s appeal, relying on a report dated 30.05.2022, and the Commissioner affirmed that decision.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the authorities correctly determined the location of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos. 1 and 2 and, consequently, whether the water bodies fell within the working area of the petitioner society or the competing societies

Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 24.03.2023, the Collector’s order dated 24.06.2022, and the resolution dated 28.08.2019 were legally sustainable when the letter dated 29.07.2019 and other relevant material had not been properly considered

Whether the matter required remand to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the competing applications for the fishery lease

The Court exercised its supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, examining whether the administrative and quasi-judicial authorities had properly considered relevant material and followed a fair decision-making process.

The proceedings also arose under the framework of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the rules made thereunder, and the State’s fisheries policy, as referred to by the respondents.

The governing principle applied by the Court was that an authority deciding competing claims for a public fishery lease must consider all relevant documents, particularly material directly bearing upon the jurisdiction or working area of the concerned cooperative societies, and must afford all affected parties a proper opportunity of hearing before taking a fresh decision.

The Court identified the location of the two water bodies and the resulting working-area entitlement as the central controversy.

It found that the Deputy Director, Fisheries’ letter dated 29.07.2019 directly stated that Jalashaya No. 1 fell within Gram Panchayat Arsi and Jalashaya No. 2 within Gram Panchayat Dodki.

Since this document was directly relevant to the petitioner’s objection and to the entitlement of the competing societies, the authorities were required to consider it while determining the lease applications.

The Court held that the material had not been appropriately considered by the Collector and Commissioner.

Accordingly, without deciding which society was ultimately entitled to the lease, the Court concluded that the decision-making process required reconsideration on the basis of the letter dated 29.07.2019 and all other relevant documents, with an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The matter was remanded to respondent No. 5, the Agriculture Standing Committee, for fresh consideration of all applications concerning the fishery lease of Tamakhurd Jalashaya Nos. 1 and 2, including the petitioner’s claim, strictly in accordance with law and after considering the letter dated 29.07.2019 and other relevant material.

The authority was directed to provide due hearing to all concerned parties and take an independent decision on merits.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not determined the ultimate entitlement of any party to the fishery lease.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.