IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1874 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR PODDAR @ BIRENDRA PODDAR, SON OF LATE LUKKAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHELAI, P.S. DANDKHORA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ------------- PETITIONER Versus 1.GHANSHAYAM MANDAL, S/O LATE MADHUSUDAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAURIYA, P.S. DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 2.DANDKHORA PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI LTD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GHANSHYAM MANDAL, S/O LATE MADHUSUDAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAURIYA, P.S. DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR. -------Opposite parties 1 and 2/1st sets opp.part. 3.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 4.SRI C.ASHOK VERDHAN, THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.SRIDEVOTAM VERMA, THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 6.MD. PRAVEJ ALAM, THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 7.SRI SUBODH PRASAD SRIVASTAWA, THE DISTRICT FISHERY OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KATIHAR. 8.SRI DURGANAND JHA, THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, DANDKHORA, DISTRICT KATIHAR. --------OPPOSITE PARTIES NO.S 3 TO 8 2ND SET OF OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2 16-04-2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 7.2.2008 in L.P.A. No.399 of 2007 has made a prayer for initiating a proceeding of contempt 2 against the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 had filed C.W.J.C. No.10727 of 2006 claiming settlement of Jalkar for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08 by assailing an order of settlement issued in favour of the petitioner dated 27.4.2005. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ application, C.W.J.C. No.10727 of 2006 by quashing the order of settlement in favour of the petitioner, whereafter he had filed L.P.A. No.399 of 2007, which came to be allowed by recording a finding that the Jalkar in question on plot nos.6 and 20 had actually been settled in favour of Sugail Chatra Bhelwa Jalkar Sahyog Matsayajivi Palan Limited, as against which opposite party nos. 1 and 2 had no locus. It has to be noted that after the appeal was allowed and the writ petition of opposite party no.2 was dismissed without any further direction by the Division Bench, the petitioner on 6.3.2008 merely 25 days and before expiry of the settlement of the year 2007-08 had claimed settlement for further three years on the basis of 3 order of this Court dated 7.2.2008 in L.P.A. No.399 of 2007.The petitioner, in fact, submits that since the District Fishery Officer-Cum- Chief Executive Officer of Fish Firms Development Agency, Katihar by his order dated 8.4.2008 had made settlement for the year 2008-09 (up to 30th September, 2008) with opposite party nos. 1 and 2, which according to him was in violation of the order of this Court dated 7.2.2008 in L.P.A. No.399 of 2007. In this case two separate show cause has been filed, one by opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 8 and other by opposite party no.7. In the show cause reply filed by opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 8 it has been explained that the period of settlement made with the petitioner had expired on 31.3.2008 and since there was no direction for further settlement in favour of the petitioner, the competent authority had taken a decision for onward settlement in accordance with the statutory provisions. In this regard opposite party no.8 the Anchaladhikari had also explained that in view of statutory provision made in Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006, the district 4 administration including the Collector, Additional Collector or Circle Officer had no longer been left with any power to make settlement of Jalkar in question and as such when they had not made any settlement in the year 2008 onward they cannot be held guilty for committing contempt of order of this Court. In the separate show cause filed by opposite party no.7, the District Fishery Officer, he has explained that in terms of the provisions made under Bihar Jalkar Management Act, the opposite party no.2 being the society eligible for settlement of Jalkar in question for the year 2008 onward was allotted such Jalkar in the settlement which has to be made only in favour of a society of the block in question. In this regard, it has been explained that the petitioner being an individual was not entitled for settlement of such Jalkar in preference to the Society in terms of the Act. Having considered all aspects of the matter, we satisfied that there was no direction by this Court for making settlement in favour of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 or thereafter. In fact, when the L.P.A. filed by 5 the petitioner was allowed, he was only left with settlement of few days, i.e, up to 31st March, 2008. After 31st March, 2008 the authorities were well within their rights to make fresh settlement for which there was no lis involved either of writ application or in the resultant appeal filed by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was claiming his settlement through the Collector of the district and that is how he has filed representation to the Collector after order of this Court dated 7.2.2008 in L.P.A. No.399 of 2007 requesting him to grant further settlement for a period of three years. The Collector of the district could not have done anything in this regard in view of the provisions made in the 2006 Act vesting power of settlement in the Fisheries Department and that too only in favour of the registered Fisherman Cooperative Society. We are therefore satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of contempt. Consequently, prayer of the petitioner for initiation of a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties is wholly 6 misconceived and accordingly this application is dismissed. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)