IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.5337 OF 2009 1. MANINDAR SINGH, SON OF GOPI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATARIA, POLICE STATION KURSHAILA, DISTRICT KATIHAR, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF KURSHAILA PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, KURSELLA 2. KURSHAILA PRAKHAND MATASYAJIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE MANINDAR SINGH, SON OF GOPI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATARIA, POLICE STATION KURSHAILA, DISTRICT KATIHAR ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER ENGINEERING OFFICE, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONPUR …………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********** 5 01/07/2009 The petitioner has challenged Annexure 1 which is a tender notice 3 of 2009 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager Engineering Office, East Central Railway, Sonpur (respondent no. 2) for settlement of jalkar for the period 2009 to 2012. The petitioner claims that the petitioner society is the only co-operative society functioning in the area and as such it is incumbent upon the respondent no. 2 to settle the jalkar in favour of the petitioner’s society. The notice is quite clear in indicating that the first preference would be given to the railway fishermen co-operative society, thereafter the other co-operative societies will be considered for the purpose of settlement. Only on failure of the two aforesaid types of society, the jalkars would be settled by general auction. This notice has been - 2 - interpreted by the petitioner as a general notice for auction whereas the stand of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway is that they are bound to make settlement in accordance with clause 2 of the notice, Annexure-1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the period for settlement ends on 31st March of each year and accordingly the petitioner society has filed an application on 23.03.2009 prior to the date of expiry of the period of settlement. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways has submitted that the Railway is bound to make settlement in accordance with its own circulars and rules which has been quoted in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. It is further pointed out that Annexure- 5 contains the principles laid down by the Railway Authorities for the purpose of making settlement of railway jalkars. According to clause 2 of the said document, it appears that it has been laid down that “where one society is operating in a particular field of operation, the handing contracts are allotted by negotiations, without call of tenders. If such a society is already functioning and its performance is satisfactory, its contract is extended”. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, - 3 - it is quite obvious that the railway is ready to settle the jalkar in accordance with clause 2 of Annexure 1 and as such at this stage the petitioners apprehension that his application for settlement will not be considered by the railway authorities because the notice issued appears to be a public notice is really unfounded in view of the fact that the respondents accept that they would be giving preference to co-operative societies for the purpose of settlement. It is expected that the railway authorities will act in accordance with clause 2 of Annexure 1 and make settlement accordingly. The petitioner should approach the railway authorities for the said settlement and after considering the petitioner’s application and the fact that there are no other co-operative society operating in the field, the railway authorities should act accordingly. Learned Counsel for the railways submits that there is a stay order in this case. Obviously, the stay order is vacated and the railway authorities are allowed to take steps in the direction of making settlement of the jalkars. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )