IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.89 of 2007 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga 5. The Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna. Versus 1. MAHENDRA MUKHIA, son of Sri Ganesh Mukhia, resident of village and P.O. Narainpur, P.S. Saketpur, District- Darbhanga, Secretary, Tardih Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Narainpur. 2. Tardih Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Narainpur through its Secretary, Mahendra Mukhia, son of Sri Ganesh Mukhia, resident of village & P.O. Narainpur, P.S. Saketpur, District- Darbhanga. 3. Paltan Mukhia, son of late Saryug Mukhia, resident of village Barra, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga, Chairman, Samparibarhit Kusheshwar Asthan Prakhand Matasyajivi Swablambi, Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Satighat. 4. Samparibarhit Kusheshwar Asthan Prakhand Matasyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Satighat through its Chairman Paltan Mukhia, son of late Saryug Mukhia, resident of village- Barra, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga. ----------- 4. 13.1.2010 Heard learned Government Pleader No.3 for the State. The present application has been filed for review of the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.9916 of 2006, by which the proportionate demand of revenue for the period from 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 was held to be wholly unjustified and illegal and the respondent- authorities of the State were directed to refund the said amount to the writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State of Bihar submits that the aforesaid demand of the authorities was justified on the ground that - 2 - although no fishing was allowed in the jalkar after 1.4.2006 but on the enactment of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act on 4.5.2006 the jalkars were resettled with effect from 1.7.2006 with the writ petitioners themselves and thus the benefit of fish increased during the three months period ultimately went to the petitioners of the writ petition and thus the order to refund the settlement amount for the period from 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 is unjustified. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petitioners have suppressed the fact before the Court that no settlement had been made with the petitioners-society and thus the demand for payment was wholly illegal and ought to be quashed, whereas true fact is that the settlement was made with them after 1.7.2006. This Court does not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner- State of Bihar. The order under review took into account the fact that there was stay of fresh settlement from 1.4.2006 by order of the State Government dated 2.3.2006 itself on the ground that the new Act was with the Legislature and likely to be enacted immediately but the same was - 3 - ultimately enforced on 4.5.2006 and, therefore, for the first time on 29th June, 2006 the demand for settlement of amount for three months, i.e., from 1.4.2006 30.6.2006 was raised without the petitioners having been permitted to enjoy the benefit of the jalkar in the meantime. The said fact has not been denied even in the review application. The fact that, ultimately, the settlement was again made with the petitioners from 1.7.2006 does not change the situation and increase in the fish during the interregnum period went to the petitioners is a not relevant issue since, as a matter of fact, the petitioners were prevented from enjoying the benefit of the jalkar for the said three months period. For the said reasons, this Court had rightly held in the writ petition that the State was not entitled to demand any settlement amount for the said period. This Court is also of the opinion that no suppression of fact was made by the writ petitioners, as the statement regarding non- settlement of the jalkar in question for the period April-June,2006 with the petitioners was made in the writ petition which alone was - 4 - relevant. It is evident that under the provisions of the Act, the State was not obliged to make settlement with the previous settlees and the fact that the same has been subsequently settled with them does not give any prior right to demand revenue from them for the aforesaid three months period, i.e., from 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006. Thus, none of the grounds for maintaining a review petition is found in the present review application. All the relevant facts were already before this Court at the relevant time and no mistake or error of law apparent on the record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State in the order under review. The review application is, therefore, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )