IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13053 OF 2010 UJIYAR TOLA MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, BIND TOLI, ARRAH THROUGH ITS TREASURER, DINESH PRASAD, SON OF SHRI RAMDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BIND TOLI, POLICE STATION ARRAH SADAR, DISTRICT BHOHPUR (ARRAH) …………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH 5. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH ……………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. NITIRANJAN JHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. A. A. G. IV ********** 2 13/08/2010 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division and the order dated 02.08.2010 by which the petitioner’s settlement of the Fish Market at Arrah Katra for the period 2010-11 has been cancelled. An advertisement was issued for the settlement of the Fish Market at Arrah Katra. It appears from Annexure-3 that there were two participants who had come forward for the settlement, one was the petitioner’s society and the other was the Bind Toli Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti. The settlement was made in favour of the petitioner’s society on the ground that the petitioner’s society had 125 members and was not defaulter, whereas the other society did not appear for 2 the settlement and was also defaulter. After the settlement, parwana was issued in favour of the petitioner society. In the mean time, the Commissioner, Patna Division addressed a letter to the Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah asking him to cancel the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society and make the settlement through open bid, as the Fish Market at Arrah Katra, sought to be settled did not come within the definition of a sairat, whereas as per Commissioner’s understanding, the settlement was made on the basis of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the advertisement envisages that individuals could also participate in the bid. Nobody participated in the bid and, therefore, the petitioner society, being the society which was eligible was granted the settlement. On perusal of Annexure-1, it would appear that the advertisement clearly notifies that individuals could also participate. The fact that nobody come forward, cannot be made ground for disqualifying the petitioner’s society. Obviously, if the petitioner’s society was the only party that had come forward to take the settlement, the qualifications of the petitioner’s society would naturally be considered as per Clause 5 of the Advertisement (Annexure-1). 3 The advertisement appears to be ambiguous only to the extent that the word `sairat’ has been mentioned in the advertisement, however, it is also clear that the settlement has been made through the Revenue Authorities, and not through the District Fisheries Officers, as is done in the case where sairats are settled under the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006. It is quite clear in the advertisement that individuals could also be entitled to take settlement. Therefore, the letter of the Commission cancelling the bid on the ground that the settlement has been made treating the Fish Market at Arrah Katra to be a sairat is misconceived. In view of the aforesaid facts, I quash the order contained in memo no. 595 dated 15.06.2010 and memo no. 1083 dated 02.08.2010. The respondents are directed to issue the letter to the petitioner to do business in the Fish Market at Arrah Katra settled in its favour in the light of the parwana on deposit of the entire bid amount. This application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )