CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4985 OF 2009 ******** NATIONAL RAHIKA PRAKHAND SWABLAMBI MATSYAJIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, BARAULI RAHIKA, MADHUBANI THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON SAROJ KUMAR SAHNI, SON OF JHARI LAL SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE BASAULI, POLICE STATION RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ……………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT & FISHERIES OFFICER, MADHUBANI 6. RAHIKA PRAKHAND JANTA MATSYAJIBI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, CHAKDAH, MADHUBANI THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE RAMDHANI MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKDAH, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 7. MATSYAJIBI SAHYOGI SAMITI LIMITED RAHIKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MANOJ KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE SAPTA, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ..................................................................RESPONDENTS ************ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.09.2008 by which 178 October category Jalkars have been settled in favour of the petitioner society, and the societies of respondents 5 and 6 in the ratio of 56, 94 and 28. The petitioner has also prayed that the order passed by the Appellate 2 Authority i.e. the Director, Fishery, Bihar, Patna dated 09.03.2009 by which he has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the disproportionate settlement be quashed. Two issues have been raised in this writ application. Firstly, it has been stated that the Jalkars settled in favour of the petitioner society are not lucrative and are non-functional Jalkars. Secondly, the settlement has been challenged on the ground that the settlement of 96 Jalkars in favour of respondent no. 6 society is a colorable exercise of the power inasmuch as it has been stated that on 30.03.2008 the number of the members of the respondent no. 6 society has been shown to be 1891 whereas the settlement has been made holding the number of members to be 3331. After perusing the order, the writ application and the counter affidavit filed in this case, it is apparent that on 31.03.2008, the members of Rahika Prakhand Janta Matsyajibi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited was 1891, i.e. on the date of last audit. The respondent no. 6 society claims that thereafter the number of members has been increased and now the members are 3331. According to the petitioner, it is improbable that within 16 days, the membership should have increased to the extent mentioned above and as 3 such it is contended that false persons with no proper address, not being the fishermen have been included as members of the society. The respondent no. 6 society has, on the other hand, submitted that after the last audit they have increased their membership and without giving details with respect to the members who are allegedly said to be FARZI or non-existing persons, this objection has been raised by the petitioner. Moreover, any such objection or dispute would necessarily have to be decided under Section 40 of the Bihar Self-Supporting co-operative Society Act and cannot be decided without proper pleadings by the Director, Fishery or this Court. On perusal of the Bihar Self-Supporting co-operative Society Act, it would appear that Section 40 provides that “if any dispute arose touching the constitution, management of business of a Co-operative Society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto should be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal for decision”. The dispute would come under Sub-section (d) of Section 40 of the Act. It is thus apparent that any dispute between the two societies has to be decided by Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the Jalkars settled with the petitioner 4 society are non-functional and are not viable and in this manner he has been prejudiced by the order of settlement. In this respect, it is apparent that the petitioner had filed an objection before the Deputy Director, Fisheries, Darbhanga raising an objection with respect to 16 Jalkars by stating that they were not viable. After examination of the matter, the District Fisheries Officer had reported that out of the 16 Jalkars, 8 Jalkars were not viable and as such they were excluded from the list of Jalkars to be settled. Therefore, I find that the objection of the petitioner that Jalkars settled to him are not viable is unfounded. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Jalkars have not been settled after following the proper procedure. In this context, it is relevant to state that notices were issued to the societies to submit their documents under Section 7 (iv) of the Bihar Fishermen Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2006”). Thereafter, the societies submitted the necessary documents to the District Fisheries Officer. Section 7(viii) of the Act provides that if more than one Fishermen Cooperative Society is desirous of taking settlement of Jalkars in the Block, the settlement of Jalkars are made according to the ratio or proportion of 5 number of all classes of Jalkars and number of members with the consent of all societies. In case, there is any dispute, the matter is referred to the Reserved Jama Fixation Committee for taking a decision in the matter. It appears that on the date fixed by the District Fisheries Officer for settlement i.e. 05.09.2008, the parties could not reach a consent and thus, the matter was referred to the Reserved Jama Fixation Committee on 12.09.2008 and the Jalkars were distributed amongst the three Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding anomalies in the distribution of Jalkars does not appear to be correct. This Court, therefore, finds that no ground has been made out for quashing the order dated 15.09.2008 issued by respondent no. 3 and the order dated 09.03.2009 issued by the respondent no. 2. In the result, this writ application is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED JULY, 2009 N.A.F.R./Anand