IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9173 of 2008 1. KAGRA ANCHAL MATASYAJEEVI SWABLAMBI SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED AT PAHSAUL, P.O. PAHASOUL, P.S. KATRA (MUZAFFARPUR), THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NAMELY SIYASHARAN SAHANI 2. Shiya Sharan Sahani, son of late Bahadur Sahani, Resident of village-Pasasaul, P.O. Pasasaul. P.S.Katra, District-Muzaffarpur ………………………….Petitioners. -With- CWJC No.9907 of 2008 1. KATRA ANCHAL MAHILA MATASYAJEE SWABLAMBI SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED, AT KATRA P.S. KATRA, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NAMELY SAGAR SAHANI. 2. SAGAR SAHANI, SON OF LATE MANCHIT SAHANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+ POST+P.S. KATRA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ……………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , through Principal Secretary, Animal and Fish Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Muzaffarpur 4. The Managing Committee, through its Chairman, Collector, Muzaffarpur 5. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-chief Executive Officer,, Managing Committee, Muzaffarpur ……………………(Respondents- in both cases) ----------- 2. 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state and its reply has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Both the writ applications arise out of the same impugned order, hence are being heard and disposed of together by a common order. Prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the Letter 2 No. 708 dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure-3) communicated to the petitioners by the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Managing Committee, Muzaffarpur informing rejection of the claim of petitioners/Society for remission and directing them to pay the amount covered under remission by 26.5.2008, failing which the Society will have to face consequential action. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction and in violation of section 12(iii) of Bihar Jalkars Management Act, 2006. Section 12 deals with claims of reshedulement/remission. Sub clause 3 of clause 12 authorizes Managing Committee to consider the claim of reshedulement/remission after receiving certificate of natural calamity by Collector and/or certificate by the Divisional Deputy Collector (Fisheries). Claim for reshedulement/remission can be made only in case of damage by natural calamity, such as earthquake, flood, and drought or fisheries epidemic. For no other reason, claim of remission is admissible. Petitioners, are Co-operative society registered under the provisions of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. In both cases, petitioners-society had taken settlement of 17 Jalkars ( in C.W.J.C. No. 9173/08) and 29 Jalkars (in C.W.J.C. No. 9907/08) and the period of settlement was w.e.f. 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2011. Petitioners’ case is that in the month of July, 2007, on account of devastating flood, all the 3 fish seeds cultivated by the members of the society were damaged and the members were so badly affected that they came to the stage of starvation. In this circumstance, it was not possible for the society to deposit installments of reserve Jama for the year, 2007-08. The petitioners-society, in this circumstance, filed an application for remission under the provision of section 12(ii) of the Act. The application filed by the petitioners was required to be considered in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the society and u/S 12(iii) of the Act as only Managing Committee is authorized to allow or reject claim of remission of the petitioners. The Managing Committee has been defined u/S 2 sub section (xiv) of the Act which means the Chairman, Vice-chairman and its members. What happened that when the letter for remission filed by the petitioners was received, it remained pending. It was placed in the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 12.3.2008 under agenda No. 4 but no resolution was taken simply the Collector was authorized to take the decision which is completely against the provisions of the Act. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5 where it has been stated that the application of petitioners’ society was placed before the Managing Committee and as per the resolution, it was placed before the Collector being the Chairman of FFDA who rejected remission application filed by the petitioners. 4 Question arises whether the Collector independently can reject or allow any prayer for remission when section 12 provides that it will be decision of the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee has been defined u/S 2 (xiv) of the Act, which includes; Chairman, Vice-chairman and its members as such, when the Act authorizes the Managing Committee to take any such decision, the Managing Committee can only take a decision for allowing or rejecting the claim for remission. Without discussing any matter, the Managing Committee cannot authorize the Collector to exercise this power, but in the present case, it has been done and rightly, petitioners’ counsel has stated that the impugned order cannot be taken as the decision of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. This matter is remitted back to the Managing Committee for taking afresh decision on the application filed by the petitioners for remission. The decision must be taken by the Managing Committee within six weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. These writ applications are, accordingly, allowed. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )