IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.285 of 2011 1. RAM SANEHI MUKHIYA, SON OF SRI BECHAN MUKHIYA. 2. RAM BRIKSH MUKHIYA, SON OF LATE MUNI MUKHIYA, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GANG RAGHAULI, P.O. MADHOPATTI, P.S. KAMTAUL, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ……………………………PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERY, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA. 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERY OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KEWATI RUNWAY VISKASH, PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWALAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. CHAK BHAWANI, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE SHATRUDHAN SAHNI. 6. SHATRUDHAN SAHNI, SON OF RAM SWAROOP SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAK BHAWANI, P.O. KEWATI, P.S. KEWATI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 7. SOGARATH MUKHIYA, SON OF YOGENDRA MUKHIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GANJ RAGHAULI, P.O. MADHOPATTI, P.S. KAMTAUL, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ……………………RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 12.5.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the order under appeal, whereby writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.11674 of 2009 has been dismissed. 2 The grievance raised on behalf of the appellants is that Respondent No.5, the Chief Executive of a Block Level Cooperative of Fishermen, has acted illegally in invoking the condition no. ‘Jha’ of an agreement between the parties which is in the shape of ‘Patta’, to cancel the settlement of a fishery and Makhana Jalkar over an area of 1.49 decimals on the ground of default in making payment of reserve Jama. The learned Writ Court has held that the Chief Executive of the Cooperative has exercised power available to him under the agreement and has shown that the settlees defaulted in making payment of regular reserve Jama in spite of notice. Annexure-‘C/5’ series to the counter affidavit have been quoted by the Writ Court in support of factum of notice to the settlees. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, in fact, no notice was received by the settlees/appellants and that an allegation of default in making payment of reserve Jama is false and only minor amount of Rs.11000/- and odd remained to be paid as per the diary of accounts maintained by the appellants. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court, which has recorded that it was not a case 3 for issuance of prerogative writ. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants raise issues involving serious dispute over facts. Hence the view of the Writ Court cannot be faulted with. The appeal is dismissed. It goes without saying that the appellants, if they are so advised, may approach the regular Civil Court for seeking any proper relief as per law. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)