IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14163 of 2006 PRAMOD KUMAR RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03/ 25.7.2008 Heard. 2. Petitioner is the settlee of the tank for the years 1999- 2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-02 for Rs. 58,500/-, which was to be deposited in six instalments of Rs. 9750/- each as would appear from the proceedings of the Committee dated 4.8.1999, which settled the tank with him and is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. In terms of the settlement, petitioner reared fish in the tank and made payments as per the terms of settlement until the year 2000-01. During rainy season of 2001-02, there was flood in the area and it is said that petitioner suffered a loss as with the receding flood water, fish also disappeared from the tank, whereafter he made representation before the authorities, who having appreciated the natural calamity, extended the terms of the settlement by two financial years which is evident from the letter of the Range Education Officer, Pupri, Respondent no.2, bearing letter No. 739 dated 1.10.2001, Annexure-4. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 1.10.2001, Annexure-4, the authorities restrained him from proceeding ahead with the settlement of the tank in question for the financial year 2002-03 then he approached this Court and this Court having appreciated the contents of the pleadings made by him, including the letter no. 739 dated 1.10.2001, Annexure-4, under orders dated 30.5.2004, passed in 2 CWJC No. 13948 of 2003, Annexure-8 to this application permitted the petitioner to make representation before the authorities, in response whereto he made representation, which has been considered by the authorities and rejected under office order, bearing Memo. No. 141 dated 28.10.2004, Annexure-C to the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.2, perusal whereof indicates that representation of the petitioner was rejected for his failure to deposit the entire settlement amount and the claim of having suffered loss was not found to be true by the authorities with reference to the statement of the Headmaster of the School in whose campus tank was situate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be permitted to assail the order dated 28.10.2004, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, this Court permitted him to assail the same and while making submission challenging the order dated 28.10.2004, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities, while passing the said order, did not even notice the contents of the instructions contained in letter no. 739 dated 1.10.2001, Annexure-4, whereunder the terms of settlement was extended by two financial years and proceeded to cancel the settlement of the petitioner on the ground that he failed to deposit Rs. 10,000/-, out of the total amount of Rs. 58,500/- and appreciating such fact, he was not allowed the benefit of extension of the settlement by two financial years under order dated 28.10.2004, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 28.10.2004, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, 3 whereunder representation of the petitioner in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 30.5.2004, Annexure-8 has been considered and rejected, does not even notice the order whereunder settlement of the petitioner was extended , as such, I deem it expedient to quash the order dated 28.10.2004, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, which is, accordingly, quashed with direction to the Regional Education Officer, Pupri to again consider the matter in the light of his own order, bearing letter No. 739 dated 1.10.2001, Annexure-4 to this application and pass speaking order considering the same. 5. Necessary order, in compliance of this order, be passed as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)