IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18065 of 2011 ============================================= 1. Mohan Sahni Son Of Late Khahori Sahni Resident Of Village & P.O. Rathi, P,S. Jale, District Darbhanga 2. Puran Sahni Son Of Shri Mahabir Sahni Resident of Village & P.O. Brahmpur (West) Pounad, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga 3. The District Fisheries Officer-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga 4. Shri Sogarath Sahni Son of Shri Rameshwar Sahni Resident of Village Brahmpur, P.S. Kamtaul, District Darbahnga 5. Ram Ashray Sahani, Son of Late Mukul Sahani, resident of village Radhi Pakhtaul, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga 6. Mahendra Sahani, S/o Late Chulhai Sahani, resident of village + P.O. Brahampur, P.s. Kamtaul, District Darbhanga .... .... Respondents ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s Basant Kr. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate & Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amrendra Kumar A.C. to G.P. 8 For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. : Mr. Pashupati Pd. Sinha, Advocate 5 & 6 (Intervenors) ============================================= 3 18-11-2011 I.A. No. 7423 of 2011 has been filed by Ram Ashray Sahani and Mahendra Sahani with a prayer to allow them to intervene into the matter as party respondents. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by them appending therewith a copy of memorandum of appeal filed before the Commissioner, Darbhanga 2 Division, wherefrom it appears that Ramashray Sahani was one of the appellants. From the copy of the ordersheet as contained in Annexure B it appears that Mahendra Sahani had also filed an application for intervention before the Commissioner concerned. However, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that in above view of the matter, the petitioners themselves are ready to implead both the aforesaid persons as party respondents. As such, the petitioners are permitted to implead Ram Ashray Sahani, Son of Late Mukul Sahani, resident of village Radhi Pakhtaul, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga and Mahendra Sahani, S/o Late Chulhai Sahani, resident of village + P.O. Brahampur, P.s. Kamtaul, District Darbhanga as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in this writ application. Now I proceed to consider this writ application on merit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State, the respondents no. 4 , the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, learned counsel, who 3 represents Vijay Krishna Nishad, who has filed another interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 7728 of 2011 for intervening into this writ application as party respondent. The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 8/9.9.2011passed by the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga in Case No. 01of 2011 appended as Annexure 8, whereby the parwana issued in their favour has been stayed and a direction has been given for fresh settlement of Mahdai Pokhar & Rajokhar Pokhar Jalkars after holding that no further direction is needed with regard to period of concerned sairats which has already expired. Short fact of this case is that by a notice dated 13.5.2011, as contained in Annexure 1, tenders were invited for settlement of several jalkars including Mahdai Pokhar & Rajokhar Pokhar Jalkars. Altogether three persons participated in the bid and being the highest bidders the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were settled Mahdai Pokhar & Rajokhar Pokhar Jalkars respectively. However, respondent no. 5 challenged that settlement by filing an appeal bearing Case No. 01 of 2011 before the 4 Commissioner, Darbhanga Division. In the aforesaid appeal respondent no. 6 also intervened. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division has passed the impugned order after recording a finding that mandatory statutory requirement of depositing entire reserve deposit as security before the bid as contained in Section 8(iii) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has not been followed as admittedly the petitioner no. 1 has only deposited Rs. 1400/- as security before bid whereas the reserve deposit was Rs. 27,500/- and the petitioner no. 2 has deposited merely Rs. 2110/- whereas the reserve deposit was Rs. 42,137/-. The Commissioner, though has not given any direction regarding the period of sairats which has already lapsed, however, he has stayed the parwana for the remaining period and has given a direction for fresh settlement. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order has been passed by taking a hyper- technical view of the matter inasmuch as the petitioners, 5 after being successful in the bid, had already deposited the entire amount. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that the requirement as contained in Annexure 8(iii) of the Act is of the mandatory in nature and, thus, in view of violation of the mandatory statutory requirement and the procedure to be followed in accordance with law, aforesaid provision, the Commissioner has rightly held that the settlement was not in accordance with law. It has also pointed out by the respondent no. 5 that the settlement period for Rajokhar Pokhar Jalkar has already expired in the month of September, 2011. I find force in the settlements raised on behalf of the respondent no. 5. For better appreciation the relevant provision is quoted as under:- “8(iii) – Only person/persons, who deposit the full amount of Reserve Deposit as security before the bid, shall take part in the bid.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision 6 would disclose that only the persons, who had deposited full amount of reserve deposit as security money, are to be allowed to participate in the bid. It is admitted position that none of the petitioners have deposited the full reserved amount. The aforesaid statutory requirement also stands reflected in Annexure 1, a notice inviting bid as it clearly discloses that only the persons who deposit entire reserve amount as security would be allowed to participate in the bid and, later on, that amount would be adjusted in the security money of the highest bidder. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any difficulty to hold that the provisions as contained in under Section 8(iii) of the Act are mandatory and admittedly they have not been followed which would definitely vitiate the entire proceeding of settlement. As a result, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent no. 2 warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) 7