IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.376 of 2009 1. JALE ANCHAL MATASYAJIVI SEWASWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NAGENDRA SAHNI S/O LATE JAGDISH SAHNI. 2. NAGENDRA SAHNI S/O LATE JAGDISH SAHNI R/O VILLAGE- NAGARDIH, P.S. JALE, DISTRICT DARBHANGA......APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA 3. THE DISTGRICT FISHERIES OFFICER CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA.......... Respondents. ----------- 4 3-7-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. On going through the provisions of Section 12 of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act,2006 it is clear that under section 12(ii) the application for claim of remission/ reschedulement by a society is only to be received in the office of the District Fisheries Officer and along with such application only a copy of the proceeding of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society is required to be enclosed. Under Section 12(iii) it is the Managing Committee as defined under section 2(xiv) of the Act which is to consider the claim of remission/reschedulement but such consideration is to be done only after receipt of concerned certificate of natural calamity by Collector and or fish epidemic certificate by Divisional, Deputy Director (Fisheries). In the present case the grievance of the writ petitioners is that the application for remission has been rejected not by the Managing Committee but at an earlier stage in a meeting of Internal Resources ( Antrik Sansadhan Committee) in the presence of - 2 - Collector of the District. The prayer of the writ petitioners is, in substance, that their application for remission should be considered by the competent Managing Committee and not be the District Fisheries Officer or any other committee at the level of Collectorate. The writ petition has been dismissed on an understanding that since the Antrik Sansadhan Committee discussed the issue whether natural calamity had occurred or not in the presence of the Collector of the District and came to a decision that there was no draught during the period in question, no certificate could have been sent regarding natural calamity to the Managing Committee that there was any natural calamity and in absence of any such positive certificate, the Managing Committee could not have allowed the claim for remission. A certificate as contemplated under section 12(ii) of the Act need not only be a certificate to show that there was a natural calamity but it may be a certificate that no natural calamity had occurred during the relevant period but such certificate is required to be sent to the Managing Committee which alone is competent to take a decision under the statutory provisions already noticed above. In the present case it is clear that the certificate by the Collector was not sent to the Managing Committee and the claim for remission has been rejected at an early stage by the District Fisheries Officer himself. Without commenting on the merits of the remission - 3 - Naresh application, the writ petition and the appeal is allowed only to the extent that the order rejecting remission claim of the writ petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Fishery Officer who will forward the remission application to the concerned Managing Committee and shall take steps to ensure that necessary certificate is issued by the Collector in respect of claim of the petitioner and is also sent to the Managing Committee within a period of two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The Managing Committee shall thereafter take a final decision on the remission application in accordance with law without any delay. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) ( Anjana Prakash, J )