IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3626 of 2011 1. Jale Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vill. Tataiya Mukhia Ji Tola, P.O. Tatila, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga through Sheo Kumari Devi, Chief Executive of the Samiti, 2. Sheo Kumari Devi wife of Ram Pratap Nishad, Chief Executive of the Samiti vill. Tataila, Mukhia Tola, P.O. Tataila, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga, … .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga, 3. Nagendra Sahni son of late Jagdish Sahni, Chief Executive of the Jale Anchal Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti, vill. Nagardih, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga, … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 7 For Res. No. 3: Mr. Pashupati Pd. Sinha, Advocate … 6 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondent no. 3. Petitioner seeks quashing of letter no. 43 dated 21.01.2011 and letter no. 44 dated 21.01.2011, issued by the District Fisheries Officer, respondent no. 2, whereby settlement of Jalkar Fishery and Jalkar Makhana which had earlier been made with the petitioner-society has been cancelled and subsequent thereof an advertisement has come up vide Annexure 2 for resettlement of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2 the aforesaid order is not in accordance with law in view of the fact that the same has been passed on the pretext that the registration of the petitioner-society was stayed by a competent Tribunal. Counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State as well as respondent no. 3. It has been submitted that the order as contained in Annexure 1 has been passed in compliance of the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.J.C. No. 3217 of 2009. I have heard the parties and perused the records of the case including the records of C.W.J.C. No. 7150 of 2009 and M.J.C. No. 3217 of 2009. C.W.J.C. No. 7150 of 2009 was filed by the respondent no. 3, Nagendra Sahni and another seeking a direction to respondent no. 2 to settle 83 Jalkars of Jale Prakhand with the valid society situated within Jale Anchal and for other consequential reliefs. The writ application was disposed of by another Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2009. The relevant passage of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:- 3 “ xxxx The decision should be taken by the District Fishery Officer, Darbhanga within a period of one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and accordingly he should issue a fresh notice inviting the societies to make settlement as per his finding after examining the aforesaid matter. It goes without saying that the District Fishery Officer, Darbhanga will examine the validity of the society before making settlement. xxx ” Subsequently, M.J.C. (Contempt) No. 3217 of 2009 was filed by the respondent no. 3 and another for initiation of a proceeding of contempt against opposite party no. 2 thereof for non-compliance of the order dated 29.06.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7150 of 2009. The matter was heard several times and a question arose therein as to whether the settlements have been made without verifying the validity of the society as per the direction contained in order dated 29.06.2009 passed as above in the concerned writ application. It was found that the settlement had been made in violation of the order of this Court. The District Fisheries Officer was directed 4 either to rectify the order of settlement or he should be liable for initiation of a contempt proceeding. The respondent no. 3(the petitioner in the contempt proceeding) had raised the issue before the learned Single Judge in the contempt application that the settlement has been made with the petitioner-society ignoring the fact that the society was not a valid one at the time of settlement. It appears that the petitioner-society also appeared in the aforesaid proceeding and filed interlocutory application for leave to intervene into the matter on the grounds fully describing therein. However, by order dated 02.02.2011 the contempt application was disposed of on satisfaction expressed by the court that the order dated 29.06.2009 passed in the concerned writ application had been fully complied with and further, that an order inviting the valid societies to participate in proceeding for settlement for the year 2010-2011 had been passed by the authority. The petitioners by filing this writ application challenge the order passed by the authorities cancelling the settlement in its favour that was passed in compliance 5 of the order dated 29.06.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7150 of 2009 as well as order dated 12.01.2011 passed in M.J.C. No. 3217 of 2009 wherein the petitioner-society had also filed an intervention application raising the ground that the case itself, which was filed against the registration of the society before the Tribunal concerned and wherein the order of staying its registration was also passed, had been dismissed for default. Therefore, at the time of passing of the original order in the contempt case, no case was pending against the petitioner-society.. However, it is submitted that subsequently, the aforesaid case was restored and thereafter it has been dismissed on consideration of materials vide order as contained in Annexure 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-society hade filed an interlocutory application raising therein the fact that the case before the Tribunal was dismissed for default but that had not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceeding. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 3 that the settlements were of a short term nature and some 6 of the settlements were till 30th of June, 2011 only and one of the settlement is going to expire on 30th of September, 2011, however, the petitioners’ contention is that the aforesaid settlement would expire on 30th of October 2011. However, in the opinion of this Court, the issue that the petitioners have raised before another Bench of this Court in the contempt proceeding by filing an intervention application and the impugned orders in the present case having been passed in compliance of the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by another Single Bench of this Court and the contempt matter was disposed of after expressing satisfaction that the order passed by it has been complied by the authority, it would not be open for this Court to re-examine all such matters and take a different view altogether. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the aforesaid order, they could have taken a recourse of an appropriate proceeding available to them under law. In above view of the matter, this writ application is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)