IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1166 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.12896 of 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6529 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1166 of 2010 ================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Fisheries officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga ………………… Appellants Versus 1. Tardih Prakhand Matsyajivi Swalambi sahkari samiti Ltd., through its Chairman, namely, Baidhyanath Mukhiya, son of late Badari Mukhiya, r/o village – Kaithwar, P.S. Sakatpur, District – Darbhanga 2. Baidhyanath Mukhiya s/o late Badair Mukhiya, r/o village – Kaithwar, P.S. – Sakatpur, District – Darbhanga …. Respondents ================================================ APPEARANCE For the Appellants : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. M. Chatterjee, Advocate ================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 18/8/2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 5th October 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above CWJC. No.12896 of 2009. Under the impugned order the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant State Government to charge proportionate annual rate for settlement of jalkar for fishing and makhana. The learned Single Judge has noted that the settlement was made from 4th September 2009 to the year ending on 30th September 2009. 2 Accordingly, the proportionate amount is directed to be recovered from the settlement holders, the writ petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey has appeared for the appellant State of Bihar. He has submitted that under the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006 statutory appeal lies before the Director of Fisheries. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to have been entertained. We appreciate the contention raised by Mr.Choubey. But, he has failed to satisfy us on merits. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)