IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13445 of 2009 CHHAURADANO ANCHAL MATSYAJIVI Sahyog Samiti Limited, having its registered office at Gonahi, East Champaran, Motihari, through its Secretary, namely, Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Shankar Mukhiya, resident of village- Gonahi, Police Station-Chhaurandano, District-East Champaran at Motihari. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fish Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Director, (Fisheries), Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. 6. The District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, East Champaran at Motihari. 7. The District Managing Committee, East Champaran at Motihari. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 13.10.2009 Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to make Jalkar District Managing Committee, East Champaran at Motihari as party respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for making settlement of Gangiadih Purushottampur Tank in his favour, having preferential right over any other society. The case in short is that petitioner-society is registered under the Act. Earlier petitioner had challenged the settlement made in favour of others. The petitioner has challenged the settlement made for the year 2003-2008 in favour of another party. It would appear from order dated 04.04.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4635 of 2005 that an auction was held on 25.06.2005 for the period 2005-2008. The petitioner could not participate in the auction as it was superseded on 22.04.2005. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of with an - 2 - observation that fresh settlement is to be made after expiry of the aforesaid period which comes to an end on 31.03.2008. The Court further observed that “the petitioner if otherwise eligible will be duly considered for settlement of the pond when the present settlement comes to an end”. Petitioner submits that the present settlement has come to an end on 31.03.2008. Learned counsel for the State submits that he does not have any instruction whether any settlement has been made in the intervening period. In case, if no settlement has been made in the intervening period the respondents will take steps for settlement of the pond in accordance with law at the earliest, so that there is no loss of revenue to the Government. With this observation, this writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)