IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5615 of 2009 1. PANDAUL PRAKHAND JANTA SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. BHAGWATIPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SUKKAN MUKHIYA, SON OF SOMAN MUKHIYA. 2. SUKKAN MUKHIYA, SON OF SOMAN MUKHIYA BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BHAGWATIPUR, P.O.- BHAGWATIPUR, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 6. PANDAUL PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SAHYOG SAMITI LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SHREE CHANDESHWAR SAHNI, SON OF LATE SHAINI SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAKARI NAWADA, P.O.- SAKARI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 7. PANDAUL PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHYOG SAMITI LTD. BHAGWATIPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE PARMESHWAR MUKHIYA, SON OF SUBANSH MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAGWATIPUR, P.O.- BHAGWATIPUR, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ------------------------------- RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner :- Ms. M. Chatterjee, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P.-20 For the Private Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate ----------- 3 29.7.2009 This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 15.4.2009 filed by respondent no. 6 challenging the orders no. 1753, 1754 and 1755 dated 15.9.2008 which are orders of settlement in favour of the petitioners. Altogether there are 3 societies operating in 2 Pandaul Anchal, Madhubani. This particular writ application is confined to 72 Jalkars in the Pandaul Anchal. The petitioner society is registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act‟). The settlement of Jalkars was to be made for the year 2008-2011 with respect to category of Makhana Jalkars. Before discussing the issues that have been raised in the appeal, I may state certain facts. The District Fisheries Officer -cum- Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani issued notices to the petitioners‟ society as well as the respondent nos. 5 and 6 societies inviting their objections to the classification of Jalkars. The societies were to file their objections by 29.8.2008. The classification was annexed as part of the notices. The three societies in question did not file any objection within the time required by notice annexure-1. Thereafter, steps were taken for settlement of the Jalkars by issuing notice to the three societies vide letter no. 1317 dated 22.8.2008 in which the petitioner and the respondent societies were to appear before the District Fisheries Officer for the purpose of amicable settlement of Jalkars. Predictably, there was no amicable settlement between the societies and as such the District Fisheries Officer along with other members settled the Jalkars to 3 the three societies vide annexure-3. I may mention here that the petitioner society has 3488 members, respondent no. 6 society has 2232 members and respondent no. 7 society has 1396 members. As per Sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Bihar Fish Jalkars Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the „2006 Act‟). The settlement was to be made to the eligible societies in proportion to the members of all class of Jalkars. The Committee decided that the petitioner society would be settled 11 Jalkars of fine category and 4 of low category whereas respondent no. 7 was settled 3 Jalkars of fine category, 9 Jalkars of medium and 2 Jalkars of low category whereas respondent no. 5 was settled 5 Jalkars of fine, 13 of medium and 2 of low category. After the decision of the Committee, settlement orders were issued which are contained in Annexure-4 in favour of petitioner vide Annexure-11 series. These settlement orders issued on 15.9.2008 vide memo no. 1753, 1754 and 1755 were challenged by respondent no. 5 by filing an appeal before the Director, Fisheries numbered as 57 of 2008. The Director, Fisheries has disposed of the appeal by cancelling the letter nos. 1753, 1754 and 1755 dated 15.9.2008 and directing the District Fisheries Officer to make settlement in accordance with the number of members of each of the societies. 4 The argument made on behalf of the respondent is that firstly, the classification of the Jalkars has not been correctly made and secondly, that there are some members of the petitioner societies who are “farzi” and actually do not belong to the society. Regarding the objection of the respondents/ appellant before the Director with respect to the classification of the Jalkars, this Court finds that the Director had no reason to believe that the Jalkars were not properly classified specially in view of the fact that the Director has recorded that notices were issued to the societies to file objections to the classification and despite the notices issued to the respondents‟ societies as well as the petitioner society, none of the societies came forward to state that the classification was not made in accordance with law. To take this objection at the stage of the appeal cannot be allowed for the reason that not only did the respondents not make any objection in accordance with law at the appropriate stage, but also this sort of tendency to raise issues at a belated stage would lead to endless litigation on the point of improper classification of the Jalkars. This Court does not mean to say that the classification cannot be challenged but it should be challenged at the appropriate stage and each and every objection made by the society in whose favour 5 the Jalkars have not been settled cannot be unsettled on the ground that the classification of the Jalkars is improper at the stage when the settlement has been made. The second ground on which the Director has set aside the order of settlement is that he has taken into consideration the objection of the respondent society that the petitioner society has a number of members who are farzi. This objection that the members of the petitioner society are farzi has been made without the list of members against whom the allegation is made that they are not the bonafide members of the society, moreover this objection has to be raised under Section 40 of the Act which envisages that “if there is any dispute between two societies with respect of their constitution, management of business matters, it should be decided by the Tribunal,”. The Director does not have the jurisdiction to go into this matter and this objection could only have been raised before the proper forum. Besides which, the allegations are vague and without any foundational facts. Learned Counsel for the respondent society, on the other hand, also submitted that the order making the settlement i.e. Annexure-3 dated 12.09.2008 is bad on two grounds, although he has not challenged the order aforesaid before the Director. It is submitted that the 6 Committee has taken into account prior settlement made in favour of the petitioner and respondent societies in allocating the number of Jalkars to be given to each of the parties. Hear, I must say that this Court finds that there is no anomaly in the allocation of the Jalkars as already stated in the earlier paragraph that the allocation has been made in accordance with the fixed category which should be allocated taking into consideration the number of members of a particular society. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent society that Annexure-3 has been signed by one Raj Kumar Sahni and Ram Dulari Devi who are also the members of the Reserve Jama Committee. It is alleged that their signatures were taken on a plain paper and to support his contention, learned Counsel relies on Annexure R6/A series which is a letter dated 07.11.2008 written to the Director in support of the respondents‟ contention that their signatures were taken on a plain paper. This Court finds it very strange that photocopy of the letter should be available to the respondents and specially in view of the fact that the letter itself does not indicate that it has been obtained from the Office of the Director, Fisheries, or that it is a copy of the letter was retained by the parties who signed on it or even that the 7 respondent obtained it after filing an application under the Right to Informant Act. This Court cannot attach importance to these letters to substantiate the contention of the respondents that the Committee was not a duly constituted society. Besides which, this issue was not raised before the Director which would also indicate that these letters were infact never filed before the Director, Fisheries. On perusal of the order dated 15.04.2009, this Court finds that the direction given by the Director to resettle the 72 Jalkars in question in accordance with the number of members of each society. Strangely enough, the order for resettlement does not support the case of the respondent society inasmuch as the Director has not come to a clear cut finding that the classification was wrongly made or that the number of members belonging to the petitioner society was not 3488 and as such this Court finds the order is not based on any cogent reasons. Accordingly the order dated 15.04.2009 passed in Appeal No. 57 of 2008 by the Director, Fishery is quashed. Learned Counsel for the respondent society submits that the respondent society had tried to deposit the reserve jama for the Jalkars settled in their favour, however, the District Fisheries Officer did not permit 8 them to deposit the amount on account of fact that this writ application was pending. This aspect of the matter should be determined by the District Fisheries Officer and if the District Fisheries Officer finds that infact the respondent society had approached the authority to deposit the amount, he ought to allow them to deposit the amount although after the expiry of the statutory time of 21 days‟ period. This writ application is allowed for the reasons aforesaid. Sanjay/Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)