IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9849 of 2010 1. TARDIH PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN NAMELY BAIDYANATH MUKHIYA S/O LATE BADAIR MUKHIYA R/O VILL.- KAITHWAR, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 2. BAIDYANATH MUKHIYA S/O LATE BADAIR MUKHIYA R/O VILL.- KAITHWAR, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA – Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL AND FISH RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA – Respondents. ----------- 2 7.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners had moved this court vide CWJC No. 12896/2009 which was disposed of on 5.10.2009 with a direction to the District Fisheries Officer, Darbhanga to accept the revenue for the years 2008-09 in view of the settlement of jalkars for September, 2009. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have filed several representations before the concerned authority to accept the revenue from September 2009 for the years 2008-09. It was also directed that the petitioners should also deposit the settlement amount for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 as there was a clear direction that the respondents should accept the revenue accordingly and allow the petitioners’ right as per letter no. 553, dated 4.9.2009. The impugned order indicates that the petitioners have not deposited the revenue, whereas the stand of the petitioners is that the District Fisheries Officer is not accepting the settlement amount. The petitioners have further been directed by the impugned order to deposit the revenue for 2 2009-10. I accordingly direct that the petitioners should deposit the proportionate revenue for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The District Fisheries Officer, Darbhanga should accept the revenue deposited by the petitioners. In case the District Fisheries Officer is not accepting the amount, the petitioners would have the liberty to deposit the amount in the treasury through a bank draft and send the photo stat copy of the same to the District Fisheries Officer by registered post / courier. The earlier order of this court as well as the impugned order indicates that the petitioners have been allotted the jalkars in question for the years 2008-09 and 2010-11. Therefore, the apprehension in the petitioners’ mind that they have not been issued Parwana deliberately by the District Fisheries Officer seems to be unfounded in view of the earlier order of this court. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)