IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11936 of 2010 1. Ram Bilash Sahni, son of Langar Sahni, village Harauna, PS Motipur, District Muzaffarpur. 2. Achhelal Sahni, son of Bhograj Sahni, village Chainpur, PS Motipur, District Muzaffarpur. 3. Mahendra Sahni, son of Late Jai Sahni, village Jahangirpur, PS Motipur, District Muzaffarpur. 4. Lal Bahadur Sahni, son of Langar Sahni, 5. Jairup Sahni, son of Faujdar Sahni, 6. Raktu Sahni, son of Ram Prasad Sahni, 4-6 residents of village Kalyanpur Harauna, PS Motipur, District Muzaffarpur – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Dy. Director Fisheries, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Fisheries Officer cum Chief Executive Officer, Muzaffarpur – Respondents. … 2 30.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claim that they are members of Harauna Society which has been disqualified for the purpose of settlement made in the year 2008 within the Motipur Anchal of Muzaffarpur district. They have come to this court challenging the order of cancellation of their settlement made through the open bid under section 7(XI) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management act, 2006. The controversy regarding this settlement was adjudicated by this court in CWJC Nos. 1403, 3374 and 576 of 2009. The petitioners of CWJC No. 1403/2009 and CWJC No. 3374/2009 were members of the Harauna Society, whereas petitioner of CWJC No. 576/2009 was the Chief Executive of the Motipur Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti. This court while deciding the issue had held that “however, the District Fisheries Officer is directed to settle the jalkars in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2 excluding the jalkars settled to petitioners of CWJC Nos. 1403 and 3374 of 2009”. L.P.A. No. 6895 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners of CWJC No. 576/2009 and the Division Bench of this court has interfered with the direction of the single bench contained in penultimate part of the judgment and held that “however, the District Fisheries Officer is directed to settle the remaining jalkars in accordance with the provisions of the Act excluding jalkars settled with the petitioners of CWJC Nos. 1403 and 3374 of 2009 and CWJC No. 576 of 2009.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the single bench has not found the settlement made by the District Fisheries Officer under section 7(X)) of the2006 Act to be bad or illegal and the petitioners’ case stands on the same footing and as such they should be given the same benefit as the petitioners of CWJC no. 1403 and 3374 of 2009. It is submitted that the finding regarding this aspect of the matter has not been challenged by any of the parties in the letters patent appeal. The difficulty lies in the fact that although the petitioners’ settlement was cancelled vide memo no. 1669, dated 20.12.2008, they chose not to come to this court. It is submitted that on 10.11.2009 vide Annexure 11 notice was issued for settling the remaining jalkars. This notice was issued in lieu of the order of the single bench directing for settlement of the remaining jalkars, then the matter was challenged in the letters patent appeal in which there was an order of status quo and as such it is submitted that the petitioners 3 did not move this court challenging the cancellation or the subsequent notice for settling the jalkars. In my view the petitioners ought to have come to this court the moment the settlement made in their favour was cancelled. The order of cancellation, dated 20.12.2008 remained in operation until the order of the single bench. Thus, the petitioners sat over the matter and were waiting in the fringe, for a positive order from the court. The person who is aggrieved by any administrative order should immediately move the court and cannot sit back and take advantage of an order passed by this court and say that it would govern his case, specially in cases of this nature. The order of the single bench or for that matter by the appellate court cannot be said to be an order in rem. Such an order decides the issues between the parties viz-a-viz each other and as such I find that the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners is at a belated stage. Besides this there is already a direction by both the courts to settle the rest of the jalkars. The petitioners, therefore, now in effect, want this court to further modify the order which cannot be done once it has been held by the single bench and the division bench that the settlements are to be made with respect to the remaining jalkars excluding the jalkars settled to the petitioners of the three writ petitions. I, thus, find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)