1 2026:CGHC:24916 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1473 of 2022 1 - Dhanannjay Kumar Rathore S/o Jadu Rathore, Aged About 46 Years President, Machuara Samooh Nariyara, R/o Village Nariyara, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector (Fisheries Department)/prescribed Authority, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Assistant Director (Fisheries), Dept. Of Fisheries Janjgir District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gram Panchayat Nariyara, Block Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Narmada Mahila Machuara Avum Seva Samiti Nariyara, Anju Dhiwar, President, Aged 28 Years W/o Shri Shiv Prasad Dhiwar, Narmada Mahila Machuara Kalyan Avam Seva Samiti Nariyara, R/o Village Nariyara, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order. b. May kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order, dt. 03/03/2022 [Annexure P/1] passed by the respondent no. 01 and kindly be pleased to restore the order, dt. 16/10/2019 passed by the respondent no. 02. C. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was granted a lease for fishing rights for a period of ten years in respect of Gram Panchayat Nariyara, District Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 after following the prescribed procedure and upon completion of all requisite formalities. Aggrieved by the grant of the said lease, respondent 3 No. 4 preferred a revision petition under Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the revision proceedings, notice was issued to the petitioner, who duly appeared before the revisional authority on 03.11.2021 in compliance with the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the next date of hearing would be communicated to him subsequently. However, no further notice or intimation regarding the date of hearing was ever served upon the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 proceeded to decide the revision petition and passed the impugned revisional order in the absence of the petitioner, without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without following due process of law, and is therefore arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned revisional order passed by respondent No. 1 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of law, and is therefore liable to be quashed. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing, thereby resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional authority has proceeded on incorrect and misleading facts furnished by respondent No. 5, who deliberately 4 suppressed the material fact that more than 50% of its own members were not enlisted in the BPL Survey List of the year 2002, while all the members of the petitioner Society were duly included in the said BPL Survey List. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is founded upon erroneous and misleading information and cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was granted the fisheries lease for a period of ten years only after strict compliance with all the prescribed statutory requirements and completion of the due selection process, and ever since the grant of lease, the petitioner has regularly deposited the lease rent in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 23.10.2019. It is further contended that the petitioner has invested substantial amounts in developing and carrying out fisheries activities pursuant to the lease, and if the impugned order is allowed to operate, the petitioner Society would suffer irreparable financial loss and prejudice. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned revisional order is based merely on surmises and conjectures, suffers from legal infirmities, and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner in relation to the grant of a fisheries lease, and that the statutory scheme provides an efficacious alternative 5 remedy of revision before the State Government against such an order. Learned State counsel further contends that, without availing of the said statutory remedy and without approaching the State Government by way of a revision petition, the petitioner has directly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy. 5. Having perused the record and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of a revision before the State Government against the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to avail the said statutory remedy by filing an appropriate revision petition before the competent authority of the State Government. In the event such a revision petition is filed within the period prescribed by this Court, the concerned State Government shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Court, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. Since this Court had earlier granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition, it is directed that the said interim order shall continue to remain in operation and shall enure 6 to the benefit of the petitioner until the revision petition is decided by the State Government or until any appropriate interim order is passed by the revisional authority, whichever is earlier. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat