@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
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. and Ors.1, 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 and 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.
