IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10356 of 2011 1. Bidupur Prakhand Mahila Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 2. Rajendra Prasad Suman Son Of Late Ram Bali Mahto R/O Village-Harpur Gopal,Ps-Bidupur,Distt-Vaishali.. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Adn Fisheries Department Bihar,Patna, 2. The Special Secretary Animal Husbandry And Fisheries Department,Bihar,Patna, 3. The Director Fisheries Department Bihar, Patna, 4. The Collector,Vaishali. 5. The District Fisheries Officer-Cum-Chief Executive Office Vaishali … … Respondents with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10403 of 2011 1. Hajipur Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., 2. Komal Kishore S/O Vijay Sahni Resi. Of Vill.- Hathsargang , P.S.- Nagar Hajipur ,Dist.-Vaishali … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Department Bihar Patna, 2. The Special Secretary , Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Department Bihar Patna, 3. The Director Fisheries Department , Bihar Patna 4. The Collector, Vaishali, 5. The District Fishries Officer-Cum-Cheif Executive Officer Vaishali, … … Respondents with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10406 of 2011 1. Mahua Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., 2. Bhola Sahni S/O Late Yogeshwari Sahani Resi. Of Vill. Chand Sarai , P.S.-Chausarai, Via -Mahua, Dist. Vaishali … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Department Bihar , Patna, 2 2. The Special Secretary , Animal Husbandary & Fisheries Department Bihar , Patna, 3. The Director Fisheries Department , Bihar , Patna, 4. The Collector, Vaishali, 5. The Dist. Fishiries Officer-Cum-Cheif Exeutive Officer,Vaishali, … .. Respondents For the Petitioners: Mrs. M. Chatterjee, M/s Samir Kumar & Ram Nibas Pd.,Advocates For the State: M/s Manoj Kumar Ambastha, GP 14, Rajeev Kumar Singh, GP 15 Balram Kapri, AC to GP 14 and Sunita Kumari, AC to GP 15 … 7 17.10.2011 I.A. No. 6443 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 10356 of 2011, I. A. No. 6445 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 10403 of 2011 and I.A. No. 6451 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 10406 of 2011: These interlocutory applications have been filed for amendment in the respective writ applications as the petitioners submit that inadvertently the names of the persons have been shown as the petitioners, however, since they are the Secretaries of the respective Societies, the petitioner no. 1 should have been Bidupur Prakhand Mahila Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. in C.W.J.C. No. 10356 of 2011, Mahua Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. in C.W.J.C. No. 10406 of 2011 and Hajipur Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. in C.W.J.C. No. 10403 of 2011 and the sole petitioner should have been shown as petitioner no. 2 in all the writ applications. A fresh 3 vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of the concerned Society in all the cases and a prayer has been made to allow the aforesaid amendment. Learned counsel for the State raises no objection. As a result, these interlocutory applications are allowed. Let the concerned Society be reflected as petitioner no. 1 and the sole petitioner shown in these cases be treated as petitioner no. 2. Now I proceed to dispose of these writ applications on their own merit. Since common issue is involved in all these writ applications, the same are being heard and disposed of by this order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. At the time of hearing in admission matter, learned counsel for the petitioners confines her submission only to one issue that as per the provisions under section 12(iii) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the Management Committee was obliged to consider the claim 4 of remission/reschedulement but such consideration is to be done only after receipt of concerned certificate of natural calamity by the Collector and/or fish epidemic certificate by Divisional, Deputy Director (Fisheries). The reports of the Managing Committees, brought on record and appended with the counter affidavits in these writ applications, do not show that such report was on record and was considered. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the State also admits that the report does not show that the natural calamity report was before the Management Committee at the time of relevant consideration. However, learned counsel submitted that it would be relevant only if there has actually been any natural calamity. However, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench rendered in L.P.A. No. 376 of 2009 (Jale Anchal Matasya Sewaswablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and anr. V. The State of Bihar and others), a copy of which has been produced at the time of hearing wherein it has been held that the certificate as contemplated under section 12(ii) of the Act need not only be a certificate to show that there was a 5 natural calamity but it may be a certificate that no natural calamity had occurred during the relevant period and such certificate is required to be sent to the Managing Committee which alone is competent to take a decision under the statutory provisions of the relevant statute. In all these cases, now it is admitted fact that such certificate issued by the Collector was not sent to the Management Committee. Therefore, the decision taken by the Managing Committees and the consequential orders passed by the State Authority based on such reports of the Managing Committees would be in teeth of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 376 of 2009. In above view of the matter, these writ applications are allowed, the orders impugned as contained in Annexures 12 and 13 in C.W.J.C. No. 10403 of 2011, Annexures 15 and 16 in C.W.J.C. No. 10406 of 2011 and Annexures 11 and 12 in C.W.J.C. No. 10403 of 2011 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Fisheries Officer, Vaishali who will forward the remission application to the concerned Management Committee and shall take steps to ensure that necessary 6 certificates issued by the Collector in respect of the claim of the petitioners are also sent to the Management Committee within a period of six weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The Management Committee shall thereafter take a final decision on the remission application in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within eight weeks upon which the consequential orders in accordance with law would be passed by the State authority expeditiously. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)