IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.57 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 12009 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 283 of 2011 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 284 of 2011 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 968 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 57 of 2011 ==================================================== Laxmi Mukhia, son of Late Gayani Mukhia, resident of Village- Barhara, Police Station-Babubarhi, Block-Babubarhi, District-Madhubani. …. …. Appellant-Respondents Versus 1. Satya Narayan Mukhia, son of Late Achechahe Lal Mikhia, resident of Village- Ghoughaur, Police Station-Babubarhi, District-Madhubani. …. …. Respondent-Petitioner 2. The State of Bihar through its District Magistrate, Madhubani. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4. The Additional District Magistrate (Revenue Confidential Section), Collectorate, District-Madhubani. 5. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Madhubani. 6. The District Cooperative Officer, Madhubani. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Anand K. Ojha, Advocate with Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gyan Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-6 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 9.2.2011. Interlocutory Application No. 283 of 2011: - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 35 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. - 2 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 of 2011: - The appellant, respondent no.6 in the above C.W.J.C. No. 12009 of 2010, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 27th October 2010 passed by the learned single Judge. The respondent no.1-the writ petitioner is the resident of village-Chorghaur, district-Madhubani. He being a resident of that village was the chairman of Babubarhi Prakhand Sampariwartit Matsyajivi Swablambi Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Samiti”). The Samiti was awarded a settlement. On a complaint made by the appellant and the others the said settlement came to be examined. On such examination the District Magistrate, Madhubani found that the name of the respondent no.1 was also included in the voters’ list of village- Chandradih, Block- Khajauli, District- Madhubani. Thus, he had gained advantage of inclusion of his name in the voters’ list of two separate assembly constituencies. On the said ground the settlement made in favour of the Samiti was cancelled on 17th June 2010. The said order was challenged by the respondent no.6 in above C.W.J.C. No. 12009 of 2010. The learned single Judge has held that though the respondent no.6 was included in the voters’ list of Khajauli block he was not demonstrated to be the member of any society of the said block. There was no justification for cancelling the - 3 - settlement made in favour of Babubarhi Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Ghaghour in Babubarhi block. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Anand K. Ojha has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the enquiry report made by the Additional District Magistrate, Madhubani. Admittedly, the writ petitioner’s name was included in two different assembly constituencies. He could not have formed a society of jalkars in Babubarhi block; nor could such society have been awarded such a settlement. We see no merit in the submission made by the learned advocate. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.6 is a resident of village-Chorghaur, Block-Babubarhi, district-Madhubani; that he is the Chairman of the aforesaid society; the settlement made in favour of the society could not have been cancelled for the reason that its Chairman was the member of the electoral in two constituencies, namely, Babubarhi and Khajauli. The reason for which the settlement was set aside was not germane. Moreover, the Additional District Magistrate went further to cancel the formation of the Samiti, clearly without the authority of law. The learned single Judge has rightly set aside the impugned order of cancellation of the settlement made by the District Magistrate, Madhubani on 17th June 2010. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. - 4 - Interlocutory Application Nos. 284 of 2011 and 968 of 2011 stand disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)