1. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers :
"A. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.
B. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 9/6/2006 passed by the Under Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation (Fishing Industry Sub-division), Gandhinagar, restoring the order dated 18/6/2004 passed by the District Development Department on behalf of the fisheries department granting lease of village pond in favour of the respondent No.4 and in turn, be pleased to restore the order dated 13/8/2004 cancelling the order of lease passed by the District Development Officer by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice.
C. Pending admission and/or final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution the order dated 9/6/2006 passed by the Under Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation (Fishing Industry sub-division), Gandhinagar, in the interest of justice.
D. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
E. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award cost of the petition from the respondent."
2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Mangrol Gram Panchyat, Taluka Jalapore, District Navsari. It is the case of the petitioner that a pond in the village, which is a source of drinking water for the residents of the village, had been given on contract to respondent No.4, for rearing fish. The pond was leased to respondent No.4 in the year 1989 for a period of three years. Upon expiry of the lease period, respondent No.4 applied to the Collector, Valsad for renewal of the lease. The lease was renewed vide order dated 21.11.1992, for a period of seven years, upon certain conditions. The lease expired in 1999. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 had not adhered to the conditions of the lease, resulting in great inconvenience and hardship to the people of the village, as the water of the pond had turned green in colour and started emitting a foul smell due to the chicken feed fertilizer being fed to the fish reared in the pond. As per the petitioner, the pond was the only source of supply of drinking water for the residents of village and the school children. The Gram Panchayat resolved, by Resolution No.5 dated 06.04.1999 that after the expiry of the lease period, the pond would not be leased out to any person in future. It is the case of the petitioner that the consent of the Gram Panchayat is necessary before leasing out the pond, as has been stated by the District Development Officer in his communication dated 14.07.2004, to the then Sarpanch of the village. However, without taking the consent of the Gram Panchayat or granting it an opportunity of hearing, the State Government has, by the order dated 09.06.2006, leased the pond to respondent No.4 for a period of ten years. According to the petitioner, the residents of the village have great objection to the leasing out of the pond, and that too without the consent of the Gram Panchayat. Hence, the petition.
3. Mr.Zubin F. Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been authorized by the Gram Panchayat to file the litigation on its behalf. He has tendered a copy of the Resolution No.9 dated 21.12.2012 to this effect, which is taken on record. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the Gram Panchayat was not aware of the passing of the order dated 09.06.2006 until respondent No.4 filed an Execution Petition in the form of a Revision Application before the State Government and thereafter that was allowed by order dated 17.06.2008 by the Officer on Special Duty (Deputy Secretary) (Inquiry), Panchayat Department. It is submitted that the interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner, as a representative of the Gram Panchayat, is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2, who may be directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to him before passing any order.
4. Upon the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the following order is passed :
The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department (Fishing Industry, Sub-Division) (Respondent No.2), within a period of three weeks from today. If the representation is made within the stipulated period of time, respondent No.2 shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. The order shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of four weeks from the date of personal hearing.
The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, without entering into the merits of the case.
Direct service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) Gaurav+ Top