IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11575 OF 2007 KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWAWLAMBI SAHYOG SAMITI LIMITED, BARRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JHUNJHUN MUKHIA, SON OF SHIVNATH MUKHIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARRA, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL AND FISH RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER –CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA 5. CONVERTED KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWAWLAMBI SAHYOG SAMITI LIMITED, SATIGHAT THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAM SUSHIL MUKHIA, SON OF LATE RAM BALAK MUKHIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARRA, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* 4 25/08/2010 This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Director, Fisheries with respect to the compliance of the orders of this Court dated 31.01.2007 passed in CWJC NO. 13618 of 2006. The period of settlement is 2006-11. The settlement was made which was challenged, subsequently cancelled, as a result of which no final order could be passed in favour of one or the other Society. The outcome of this infighting between the Petitioner’s Society and the Respondent’s Society is that the State has been a loser as it has not received a penny between the years 2006-11 with respect to the Jalkars 2 situated in Kusheshwar Asthan in the district of Darbhanga. Such activities of the Societies are to be highly depreciated. Coming now to the impugned order, it would appear that the Director, Fisheries has given a direction that fresh settlement should be made between the Petitioner’s Society and the Respondent’s Society or any other society which is eligible, with consent of the Societies. If the District Fisheries Officer finds that the parties do not agree for the settlement, then steps are to be taken under Section 7 (VIII) of the 2007 Act. This order, according to this Court, is perfectly valid and cannot be challenged because a fresh settlement has to be made. In the result, the Counsels for the parties agree that a fresh settlement should be made for the remaining period of the Settlement within the shortest possible time. The parties will not challenge the said settlement on the ground that the classification of Jalkars was not correctly made, as agreed by the Counsel in this Court. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )