IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.516 of 2007 1. Jhanjharpur Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti, Jhanjharpur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, district Madhubani through it’s Secretary, Baidya Nath Mukhiya 2. Baidyanath Mukhiya, son of late Chanchal Mukhiya, Resident of village Naruar, P.S. Bhairab Asthan, district Madhubani, presently Secretary of Jhanjharpur Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti, Jhanjharpur .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4. The Collector, district Madhubani 5. Director, Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. Deputy Director, Fisheries, Darbhanga 7. District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani, district Madhubani .. Respondents **** /5/ 02.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is a registered Cooperative Society of Fishermen of Jhanjharpur Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti and petitioner no. 2 is it’s Secretary. 3. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing Memo No. 638, dated 08.08.2005, issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Government of Bihar, (respondent no.2) directing to enhance reserve jama by 25 per cent of the previous year’s - 2 - reserve jama. Further, prayer is for a direction to the respondents to refund the petitioners’ excess 25 per cent reserve jama deposited by the petitioners’ Society for taking settlement of Shairat for the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The enhancement of 25 per cent reserve jama has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the Government of Bihar way back on 14.02.1983 has clarified that reserve deposit fixed in a particular year shall continue for three years and, thereafter, it can be enhancement only 15%. Respondent no. 2 vide Memo No. 638, dated 08.08.2005, contrary to the policy decision of the Government directed for 25% enhancement over previous year’s settlement amount, which is arbitrary exercise of power and could not have been done. 4. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State. First counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 5, 6 and 7, who are Director, Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna, Deputy Director, Fisheries, Darbhanga, and District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani. Initially, no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, whose order was under challenged, as such, specific direction was issued to respondent no. 2 for filing the - 3 - counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 question regarding maintainability of the writ application has been raised on the principles of stopple. It is stated that the reserve jama was directed to be enhanced by respondent no. 2 vide order, contained in Memo No. 638, dated 08.08.2005. Settlement of Jalkars was made on 07th February, 2006, as per the settlement rules. The privilege of settlement of Jalkars on priority basis is given to the registered fishermen cooperative societies and only in case, at enhanced reserve jama, cooperative societies are not eager to take settlement, it is made through open bid. The petitioners’ society as well as other registered cooperative societies of the locality had full knowledge regarding the enhancement of reserve jama, in spite of that petitioners’ society willingly took settlement of Shairat for three financial years, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The petitioners’ society continued with settlement for two years and, thereafter, has come before this Court challenging the enhancement in reserve jama, which is barred by principles of estopple and petitioners can not be allowed to raise such objection. 5. The counsel for the petitioners has no answer to the - 4 - objection raised by respondent no. 2 in the counter affidavit. However, the counsel for the petitioners submits that in any case 25% enhancement in reserve jama could not have been made for three years under the previous settlement rules as similarly under the Bihar Jalkar Management Act, 2006, there can be no enhancement for five years. 6. I do not find any reason to interfere in this case, considering the fact that petitioners had option not to take settlement of Shairats at enhanced reserve jama as it was made much before the settlement. Once, the petitioners’ society has entered into an agreement accepting all terms and conditions with open eyes, the society is stopped from raising any question. The reason shown by the petitioners in the writ application for taking settlement in spite of knowing the fact regarding the enhancement is not at all acceptable. 7. Considering this fact, this application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J.)