IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16615 of 2009 1. JHANJHARPUR ANCHAL MATSYAJIVI SAHAYOG SAMITI LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NAMELY BAIDYANATH MUKHIYA 2. BAIDYANATH MUKHIYA S/O LATE CHANCHAL MUJHIYA R/O VILL.- NARUAR, P.S.- BHAIRABASTHAN, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, FISHERIES BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES HEADQUARTER, PATNA 5. DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER - CUM - CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MADHUBANI ----------- 03. 12.01.2010 Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 3. Petitioner society has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna in Appeal Case No.08 of 2009, Annexure-14, whereunder its request to accept the proportionate settlement amount for the Jalkar in question for the settlement year 2008-09 has been refused. Notice dated 19.8.2008, Annexure-1 was issued for settlement of Jalkar in question. On account of administrative lapses, the settlement of the tank in question was made under order dated 12.8.2009, Annexure-4 with direction to the petitioner society to deposit Rs.7,83,930.00/- the full settlement amount for the period 2008-09, although, settlement was made just 49 days before the expiry of the settlement year on 30.9.2009. Petitioner society having obtained the settlement requested the authorities to accept the proportionately reduced settlement amount for the aforesaid period as the society was - 2 - not responsible for the delayed settlement. Such request has been refused by the Director, Fisheries under the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure-14, perusal whereof indicates that the learned Director has accepted the fact that the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society vide Annexure-4 was delayed on account of administrative lapses, yet he has not exercised his discretion to reduce and refund the settlement amount proportionately. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He states that petitioner society accepted the settlement made belatedly under order dated 12.8.2009, Annexure-4 and having accepted the settlement he is stopped from raising submission that the settlement was delayed on account of administrative lapses and the settlement amount be proportionately reduced. He further submits that reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner over the order dated 5.10.2009 passed in the case of Tardih Prakhand Matsyjaivi Swasblamibi Sahmakri Samiti Ltd., Annexure-8 is also misconceived as the said order was passed in connection with a tank, which was settled for fishing purposes but the present settlement of the Jalkar in question is for harvesting of Makhana crops and not for fishing purposes, as such, the said order should not be relied upon in the case of the petitioner. He also pointed out that prior to the settlement petitioner society had filed petition before the District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani that Makhana fruits in the tank is being destroyed by the members of the public, protection should be allowed to him so that he may preserve the crops and as and when settlement is made, the society can harvest the same. When such - 3 - submission was made by the learned counsel for the State, this Court called upon him to produce Parwana issued in favour of the petitioner society in anticipation of the settlement of the Jalkar in question in favour of the society, whereafter learned counsel accepted that no such Parwana was ever issued to the petitioner society. 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure-14 itself, it is evident that the settlement was delayed on account of administrative lapses, for which petitioner society was not at all responsible. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure-14 and direct the competent authority of the State to grant proportionate refund of the settlement amount to the petitioner society as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)