IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1461 of 2009 BHOLA SAHNI s/o late Ramai Sahni, r/o village Sukhlahiya, P.S. Darpa, District East Champaran at Motihar .. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal and Fish Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, East Champaran, Motihari 5. Rahul Kumaar s/o Bhola Sahni 6. Ranju Devi, wife of Shri Anand Kumar, both r/o village Sukhalhiya, P.S. Darpa, East Champara, Motihari …Respondents Ist Set 7. Chhauradano Prakhand Matasya Jivi Swablambi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., having its registered office at Tinkoni, P.S. darpa, East Champaran through its Chief Executive, namely, Umesh Mukhiya 8. Umesh Mukhiya, s/o Rajbanshi Mukhiya r/o villag4 Tinkoni, P.S. Darpa, District East Champaran, Motihari ……. Respondents 2nd Set ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Dipak Kumar Mr. Madhuresh singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. K.P.Gupta, SC V 2 17/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that the appellant Bhola Sahni was made respondent no.7 to the writ petition in question. It is also not in dispute that order dated 5.11.2009 under appeal whereby the writ petition has 2 been disposed of, was passed without notice to respondent no.7 and without hearing him. From the materials annexed with the memorandum of appeal, it is apparent that the appellant has been pursuing his claim that he has been issued with Parwana by the Society over one particular Jalkar and his interest is being prejudiced on account of fight between two persons as to who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to go into the merits of the claim of the parties and instead we are of the view that the matter should be remitted to the writ court so that appellant and other necessary parties may be heard before passing a final order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the writ court for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties. Since the parties appear to be involved in dispute over physical possession of Jalkars, it would be proper that the writ petition is heard at an 3 early date. It may be listed for admission as a fresh case before the concerned court urgently. Neyaz/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (S. K. Sharma, J.)