IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1207 of 2009 RAJENDRA BIN, SON OF HARGENA BIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DUMRI, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. --- APPELLANT. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN-CUM-CHAIRMAN, MANAGING COMMITTEE, SIWAN. 3. THE DIRECTOR FISHERIES, DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SIWAN. ---RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 5. RAM DAS PRASAD, SON OF LATE KAMAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KORARI TOLA, BHARAULI, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. ----PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 6. RAJ KISHORE SINGH, SON OF DUDHNATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF DAWAN CHAPRA, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 7.THE SECRETARY, SIRSAON FISHERIES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. ---- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----- For the appellant : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Advocate. For respondents-State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar-1, G. P. 14. ----------- 03. 25.03.2010 I.A.No.6004 of 2009 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents as also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, the delay of eight days in filing of the appeal is - 2 - condoned. 2. The aforesaid interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A.No.1207 of 2009 3. As we have condoned the delay and are also of the considered view that the appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondents-State on merits. 4. In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to an order dated 06.07.2009 in C.W.J.C.No.18042 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Respondent no. 5 has been disposed of with certain directions. 5. The only submission as against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is that the writ petition filed by respondent no.5 writ petitioner was itself not maintainable inasmuch as the remedy for him was by way of appeal under Section 14 of Bihar Fish Jalkars Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 6. The controversy in issue in the writ petition - 3 - filed by respondent no.5 of this appeal, Ram Das Prasad, was with regard to settlement of 50 Jalkars in favour of the appellant in violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. It was alleged in the writ petition that the settlement made in favour of the appellant of 50 Jalkars was not sustainable inasmuch as he was not a resident of the village where the Jalkars were situated. While assailing the settlement in favour of the appellant, the writ petitioner-respondent no.5 of this appeal had specifically asserted that he was the only member of the Co-operative Society who was a resident of the same village where the Jalkars were situated and was denied settlement of Jalkars by the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. 7. It has to be noted that the appellant had appeared and was represented through his counsel at the stage of hearing of the writ petition, but he had not chosen to file any counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot question the locus standi of the writ petitioner for the first time in this appeal, an issue which was also even not remotely raised by him at the stage of the writ petition. - 4 - 8. Additionally, this court would find that a counter affidavit, in fact, was filed by the official respondent, duly sworn by District Fisheries Officer wherein it was stated that the District Fisheries Officer- cum-Chief Executive officer, Siwan having been informed of settlement of Jalkars with the appellant had issued an order that the settlement of Jalkars by the Society should not be made in favour of a person who was not eligible in terms of Section 10 of the Act. In the counter affidavit a report submitted by the District Fisheries Officer to the Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna dated 06.09.2008 was also annexed to show that there were apparent discrepancies committed by the Secretary of the Society by making settlement of 50 Jalkars in favour of the appellant. The Director, Fisheries, in fact having received such report had also sent a show cause notice to the Secretary of the Society with regard to illegal settlement made in favour of the appellant, but the Secretary of the Society had not responded even to that show cause notice. 9. Thus, from the reading of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents it becomes - 5 - clear that there were, prima facie, materials to show that the settlement of 50 Jalkars in favour of the appellant was in teeth of the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, the directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order seem to be absolutely correct inasmuch as the authorities under the Act after according knowledge of illegal settlement of Jalkars were at least under obligation to hold an hold an inquiry. As a matter of fact, the directions of the learned Single Judge to the following extent: “This Court directs the respondent to issue show cause notice to Rajendra Bin (Respondent No.5) within one week on receipt/production of a copy of this order to answer the allegations made against him and also issue fresh notice to the Secretary of the Sirsaon Fisheries Cooperative Society, Daraunda, District-Siwan within the aforesaid time and also consider superseding the Society and taking appropriate action if the Secretary of the Society does not appear and answer the charges levelled against him. The respondent no.4 will also consider whether it would be appropriate to cancel the settlement made in favour of Respondent no.5, Rajendra Bin after hearing him if he appears after the notice. The entire proceedings should be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the petitioner is also entitled to be heard in the matter and he should also be informed - 6 - regarding the date fixed for hearing this case. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” does not suffer from any error. It has to be noted that the learned Single Judge has not passed any order adverse to the interest of the appellant and it is still open to the appellant to establish in the inquiry to demonstrate that the settlement of 50 Jalkars made in his favour were in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It appears to us that the appellant by filing this appeal has only tried to delay the compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we concur with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of the appeal with a direction that the order of the learned Single Judge should be complied by the official respondents in letter and spirit. 11. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)