Jai Sahada Dev Matsya Samooh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.410 of 2015

1. Jai Sahada Dev Matsya Samooh, a society acting in the premises through its President Shri Manharan Sahu, son of Shri Firturam Sahu, aged about 42 years, Village Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Manharan Sahu, son of Shri Firturam Sahu, aged about 42 years, resident of Village Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Naya Raipur, District Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Naya Raipur Development Authority, through its Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Janpad Panchayat Aarang, through its Chief Executive Officer, Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Matsya Palan Prasar Karyakarta, Vikas Khand Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Praveen Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 8/10/2015 1.

I.A. No.1 of 2015 has been filed to condone delay of 121 days in filing the appeal.

2.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I.A. No.1 of 2015 is allowed and delay is condoned.

3.

The present appeal arises from order dated 26.2.2015 dismissing Writ Petition (C) No.264 of 2015.

4.

There is no infirmity in the order of the Learned Single Judge calling for interference, but we find Annexure P-6 to the writ application was a recommendation by Respondent No.4 dated 22.2.2014. It appears that attention of the Learned Single Judge was not adequately invited to the same.

5.

Despite our reluctance to entertain the writ appeal, nothing prevents the Respondents from considering the recommendation and acting in accordance with law expeditiously. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the recommendation, the consideration of which remains entirely in the realm of the Respondents. 6.

The writ appeal stands disposed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Gopal