### Writ jurisdiction is barred where statutory remedy to challenge Panchayat resolutions and fisheries allotments exists.

The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged an order dated 16.06.2025 issued by Janpad Panchayat, Khaniyadhana, which allotted fisheries rights for Phootybar Pond to respondent No. 4 for 10 years.

Through subsequent amendments, the petitioner also challenged the eligibility list prepared by the Assistant Director of Fisheries and the resolution dated 22.04.2025 favoring respondent No. 4.

The petitioner argued that respondent No. 4 was ineligible and that the allotment violated a previous High Court direction in W.P. No. 5167/2014.

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a Janpad Panchayat's resolution and allotment order when statutory remedies under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 exist.

2. Whether the power to "suspend" a resolution under Section 85 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 constitutes an efficacious remedy as opposed to quashing it via writ jurisdiction.

The court applied Section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which provides for appeals/revisions against Panchayat orders.

Section 85 empowers authorities to suspend resolutions.

It relied on the Division Bench ruling in Aadiwasi Matsyodyog Sahakari Sanstha Mydt. v. State of MP (W.A. No. 574/2023), which established that once a resolution is suspended under Section 85, it is effectively "pocketed" and neutralized.

It further cited Sagar Machhua Sahakari Samiti v. CEO, Janpad Panchayat [2008(2) MPLJ 194] regarding the scope of Section 85.

It cited Shyama Dwivedi v. State of M.P. [2009(1) MPLJ 456] regarding the Collector’s competency as an appellate authority under Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Ram Lakhan Rawat v. State of M.P., noting that subsequent Division Bench rulings had clarified the efficacy of Section 85.

The Court reasoned that since the fisheries policy of 2008 was formulated under Section 53 of the Adhiniyam, any allotment order issued thereunder is an original order under the Act and thus subject to the appellate mechanism of Section 91.

The Court determined that an order passed by a Janpad Panchayat must be challenged before the Collector under Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules.

Consequently, the existence of a robust, bifurcated statutory remedy (appeal under Section 91 or suspension under Section 85) precluded the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

It held that disputes regarding fisheries rights allotments by Panchayats must first be exhausted through the statutory appellate process.

The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority (the Collector) within 30 days, with a direction to the authority to decide the matter on merits without regard to limitation.