IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13651 of 2007 1. JALE ANCHAL MATSYAJIVI SEWA SWABLMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTED through its Chief Executive Nagendra Sahni son of late Jagdish Sahni 2. Nagendra Sahni son of late Jagdish Sahni Both resident of.village Nagardih P.S. Jale Dist. Darbhanga Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga Respondents ----------- 4 26.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant counsel to learned Government Pleader no.11 for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2006 (Annexure 1), issued under the signature of respondent no.3 whereby the petitioners’ application for remission in terms of section 12 ( i ) of the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been rejected. The respondents placed their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. It appears that the petitioners were the settlees. They filed applications under section 12( i ) of the Act before respondent no.3 for remission of the consideration money on the ground that there was draught during the period in question within the meaning of section 12(i) of the Act and, therefore, remission of the consideration money may be granted. The same has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is evident on a plain reading of section 12 ( i ) of the Act that the application has to be filed before respondent no.3 which shall be placed before the Managing Committee constituted in terms of section 2(xiv) of the Act and the final - 2 - order shall be passed by the State Government in terms of section 12( v) of the Act. In that view of the matter, in his submission, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction to pass final order on the application for remission. He relies on the order dated 21.8.2007 passed in CWJC no.14469/2006 (Annexure 6), as well as order dated 30.10.2007, passed in CWJC no.14472/2006 (Hanuman Nagar Prakhand Matasyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti ano. vs The State of Bihar & ors). We have perused the materials and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me on a perusal of section 12 (i) of the Act that Sine Qua Non for maintainability of an application under section 12 ( i) of the Act is damage by natural calamity like drought etc. Section 12 of the Act is reproduced herein below: 12- *jhf’kM~;wYesUV* NwV dk nkok %& ¼(i) jhf’kM~;wYesUV NwV dk nkok dsoy izkd`frd vkink tSls HkwdEi] lq[kkM+] ck<+ ;k eNfy;ksa esa egkekjh ls gq, uqdlku ds ekeys esa gh fd;k tk ldsxkA vU; dkj.kksa ls gq, uqdlku ds fy, NwV dk nkok vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ¼(ii) lfefr }kjk jhf’kM~;wYesUV NwV ds nkok dk vkosnu izkd`frd vkink vFkok eNfy;ksa esa egkekjh ds ?kfVr gksus ds nks ekg ds Hkhrj ftyk eRL; inkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa fy;k tk,xkA vkosnu ds lkFk lfefr dh izcU/kdkfj.kh dh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh dh izfr] ftlesa lnL;okj izLrkfor jhf’kM;wYesUV dh vof/k NwV dh jkf’k dk Li"V myys[k gks] layXu dh tk;xhA ¼(iii) ftyk inkf/kdkjh ls izkd`frd vkink ls lacaf/kr izek.k i= ,oa@;k {ks=h; mi funs’kd (eRL;) }kjk egkekjh ls lacaf/kr izek.ki= miyC/k gksus ij gh fd;k x;k nkok ij izcU/k lfefr fopkj dj ldsxhA ¼(iv) NwV dh jkf’k vxyh fd’r dh jkf’k ls vuf/kd ,oa jhf’kM~;wYesUV NwV dh vof/k cUnkscLrh dh 'ks"k vof/k ls vuf/kd gksxkhA (v) fof/kor NwV ds nkos ij tcrd ljdkj dk vfUre fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk gS rc rd lfefr dks cdk;knkj ugha ekuk tk,xkA It appears that the petitioners based their claim for remission on - 3 - the ground that there was no drought during the period in question which could have entitled him to remission. It appears that, in view of the provisions of section 12(iii) of the Act, application has to be placed before the Managing Committee after it has received report of the concerned Certificate Officer of natural calamity like drought by the Collector of the district. It is only after the Managing Committee receives the Collector’s certificate to the effect that natural calamity has occurred during the period is question, that the Managing Committee shall be obliged to forward the application with its own view to the State Government for final disposal. It appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that the issue was discussed by the vkUrfjd lalk/ku Committee in the presence of the Collector of the district to certify whether or not there was drought during the period in question, and it was held that there was no drought during the period in question. In that view of the matter, the petitioners’ application for remission is not maintainable and, therefore, there is no question for forwarding the same to the State Government. In fact, the impugned order has not been passed by respondent no.3. He has, after discussion of the matter by the vkUrfjd lalk/ku Committee in the presence of the Collector of the district, had only conveyed its decision. I do not find any fault with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)