IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2871 of 2010 1. Bachha Mahto, sosn of Chhathu Mahto, resident of village Samanpur, P.S. Ghorashahan, Distt. East Champaran, Chief Executive, Ghorashahan Prakhand Naw Pragatisheel Machhua Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 2. Rambhu Mukhiya son of Chintaman Sah, resident of village Bijayi, P.S. P.S. Ghorashahan, Distt. East Champaran, Chief Executive, Ghorashahan Prakhand Adarsh Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 3. Jai Mangal Mahto son of late Jhagru Mahto, resident of village Bhagwatpur Bhaluahi, P.S. Shikarganj, Distt. East Champaran, Chief Executive, Cheraiya Prakhand Machhua Kalayan Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 4. Dilip Sahni son of Daroga Sahni, resident of village Malahi, P.S. Chhauradano, Distt. East Champaran, Chief Executive, Bankatwa Prakhand Adarsh Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Fisheries Officer-cum- Chief Executive Officer, East Champaran 02/ 18.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The four petitioners are the Chief Executive of the Fishermen Co-operative Societies, which have been registered on 9.7.2009, 5.9.2009 and 9.9.2009 and are operating in Ghorasahan, Cheraiya and Bankatwa Block of East Champaran District. By filing the writ application, they call upon this Court to direct the District Fisheries officer-cum- Chief Executive Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, Respondent no.4 to consider their case for settlement of the Tank situate in those Blocks for the settlement year 2009-10 for which notice dated 25.1.2010, as contained in Annexure-4 series has been issued fixing 10.2.2010 as the date for settlment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that perusal of the notice, Annexure-4 series itself would indicate that petitioners- - 2 - Societies have not been permitted to apply, as notice does not include their names along with the Societies which have been permitted to apply for settlement. Learned counsel further submitted that till date the settlement of the tanks in question has not been made, as such, even at this stage, this Court can direct the District Fisheries Officer, Respondent no.4 to consider the case of the petitioners for settlement, as they are also operating within the three blocks. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He states that the Societies having been registered in the year 2009, do not have audit report for preceding two years, which is compulsorily required to be filed along with the application in terms of the provisions contained in Section 7(iii) of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in the circumstances the prayer of the petitioners, even if allowed, they are not likely to be granted any settlement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, submitted that once the Societies have been registered, their case is required to be considered by the authorities for settlement of the Tanks in question. In this connection, she invited my attention to the provisions contained in Section 7(v) of the Act, whereunder the Collector of the District has been authorized to even extend the time granted for making application in terms of the notice issued for settlement. 6. Perusal of Section 7(v) of the Act indicates that extension can be allowed only in special circumstances by the Collector of the - 3 - District. In the circumstances, having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioners to request the Collector of the District to consider their case for extension of the date of application and settlement and if the Collector is satisfied that petitioners have been prevented from submitting their application on valid ground then in his discretion the Collector of the District may consider the case of the petitioners to extend the date for application and consideration for settlement and pass orders, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The case of the petitioners, if allowed by the Collector, be considered by the competent authority for settlement in accordance with law and with these observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)