Anand Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 414 of 2018 Anand Machhua Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Kanchan Nagar, Post Aragahi, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Through It President Namely Bhavesh Sarkar S/o Bhawranja Sarkar Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Kanchan Nagar, Post Aragahi, Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Agriculture (Fisheries) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Assistant Director, Department Of Fishrey, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

3. Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

5. Divisional Forest Officer Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

6. Range Officer, Forest Range Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramnujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 16/02/18 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has been granted fishing rights by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur by order dated 05.12.2017 but the forest authorities are interfering with their rights and the fishing activities are not being allowed.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

On careful perusal it appears that no such documents has been filed demonstrating that after 05.12.2017 any fishing rights of petitioner has been interfered with. Even otherwise, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and also to approach the jurisdictional Court for protection of their rights in accordance with law. 4.

No such writ can be issued at this stage restraining respondents No. 5 and 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka