IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.15307 OF 2010 1. SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF LATE SHANKAR MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GONAHI, POLICE STATION CHHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI, SECRETARY OF CHHAURADANO ANCHAL MATSYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI LIMITED, CHHAURADANO 2. CHHAURADANO ANCHAL MATSAYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI LIMITED CHHAURADANO THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SANJAY KUMAR 3. MACHHUA SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, CHHAURADANO THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE JITENDRA KUMAR @ SONU KUMAR 4. JITENDRA KUMAR @ SONU KUMAR, SON OF RAMCHANDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GONAHI, POLICE STATION CHHURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSIONER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER –CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTIHARI 6. CHHURADANO PRAKHAND SAMRAT MATASYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, CHHAURADANO THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SHANKAR MUKHIA, SON OF MANSHI MUKHIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASHI, POLICE STATION CHHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ……………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. PASHUPATI PRASAD SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESP. NO. 6 :- MS. M. CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. SAJAL KUMAR SINGH, AC TO GP 7 ***** 3 23/09/2010 The petitioner has challenged Annexure-1 which is an order of settlement in favour of the respondent- Society issued on 05.08.2010. The grounds of challenge are that the settlement was made on 05.08.2010 whereas the Bihar Self-Supporting Societies Act, 1996 has been amended by the Act of 2010 which has been made effective from 02.08.2010. In reply to the aforesaid - 2 - objection raised on behalf of the petitioner-Society, it is said that the process of settlement started in February, 2010 when there was advertisement for settling the sole Jalkar in question. In the view of this Court, this aspect of the matter becomes important since the amendment is made much later and the process of settlement had already begun much earlier to that, it cannot be said that the settlement would be bad on the ground that there was an amendment by which the Self-Supporting Co-operative Society was to be dissolved, to be re-registered under the 1935 Act. In this context, it would also be important to note the fact that when the advertisement was issued for the settlement of the sole Jalkar, the respondent-Society and three other societies were excluded from participating in the settlement process. These societies moved before this Court by filing CWJC No. 2871 of 2010 challenging the exclusion of the petitioner-Society from the settlement process. An argument was also made during the hearing of the aforesaid writ application that the respondent-Society and the other petitioners of CWJC No. 2871 of 2010, do not fulfil the conditions as laid down under Section 7 (iii) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Court while disposing of the writ application on - 3 - 18.02.2010 referred the matter to the Collector for a decision in the matter. The Collector by letter no. 614 dated 05.03.2010 allowed the respondent-Society and three other who were applicant before this Court, to participate in the settlement. In the aforesaid facts, the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner Society that the respondent society was not entitled to be considered for grant of parwana as the Society was registered on 02.09.2009, whereas the settlement made for the period 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010 cannot be considered as a valid ground for setting aside the settlement made on 05.08.2010. The objection of the petitioner Society is that the respondent Society does not fulfil the conditions laid down under Section 7 (iii) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “(iii) It will be compulsory for the Fishermen Co- operative Societies to enclose following documents with their application to the District Fisheries Officer for settlement of Jalkars. (a) A proof relating to the payment of current year audit fee and Audit report of the previous two years, issued by the Co-operative department. (b) A certificate of last election and a proof regarding area of operation of the society. - 4 - (c) A proceeding of Annual General Meeting of the preceding year in which there should be a clear description of settlement made with members by the society.” It is submitted that the respondent-Society cannot submit the audit report of the previous years or of the current year, and thus is barred from coming within the zone for consideration of settlement of Jalkars. In my opinion, the provisions of Section 7 (iii) of the Act are for those societies who have been registered for more than two years. It cannot include such societies which have been registered in the current year or the previous year, as such societies would not be able to provide audit report of the „previous two years issued by the Co- operative department‟. Once, a society has been registered for two or more years, this provision would obviously be applicable and any society which does not fulfil the conditions therein may be barred from making an application for settlement. However, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that the societies registered just a year previous to the advertisement for settlement would be barred from taking settlement as it is a young society having been established for only one year. To give such an interpretation would be contrary to the equality clause, provided under the Constitution of India to all - 5 - persons to have an equal opportunity. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Society submits that the writ application itself is not maintainable as there is a provision under the Act to file an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Director or to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner after amendment of the Act. I do not wish to enter into this controversy as I have already held that the objections raised by the petitioner Society are not maintainable. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )