IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6239 of 2009 Rajnagar Prakhand Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Laxmipur through its Chairman, Mohan Sahni, son of Sri Dhaneshwar Sahni, resident of village and P.O. Laxmipur, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani 4. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga 5. District Fisheries Officer, Madhubani 6. Samparbartit Swablambi Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Simri Nav- tol, Rajnagar through its Chairman, Bhogendra Mukhiya son of not known, resident of village Simri Nav tol, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani 7. Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Koilakh through its Chief Executive, Surendra Singh, son of not known, resident of village and P.O. Koilakh, P.S. Rampatti, District Madhubani For the Petitioner :Mr.Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate For the State Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to Supreme Court V For Respondent no.6 :Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate 04/ 25.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner- Self Supporting Fishermen Co- operative Society is aggrieved by the order of the Director, Fisheries dated 16.3.2008, passed in Appeal Case No. 60 of 2008, Annexure-4, whereunder the appeal filed against the settlement of the tanks in question made in favour of the petitioner- society was dismissed on the ground that after failure to arrive at consensus between the three societies for - 2 - the distribution of the Jalkars in question, settlement was made in favour of the petitioner and the two other societies by the Reserve Deposit Fixation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) under proceedings of the Committee dated 12.9.2008, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 in terms of the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 as amended in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that 8.9.2008 was the date fixed for arriving at consensus between the societies for distribution of the tanks in question such fact would appear from memo no. 1543 dated 5.9.2008, Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.6, but on 8.9.2008 no consensus could be reached and without there being any reference in writing to the Committee, decision dated 12.9.2008 was taken by the Committee as per the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the records, which have been produced by the State counsel, also it will not - 3 - appear that after failure of the societies to arrive at consensus about distribution of jalkar on 8.9.2008, any reference was made to the Committee and the decision dated 12.9.2008, Annexure-C appears to have been taken by the Committee without any such reference as also behind the back of the petitioner- society and ignoring the number of members of the three societies, as also without examining the number of members of the three societies furnished as has been indicated by the societies in their application. 4. Counsel for the State and private Respondent no.6 have opposed the submission and it is submitted by them that in terms of the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Act, the date for arriving at consensus for distribution of the tanks in question between the three societies was fixed as 8.9.2008, but on that date, as there was no consensus between the members of the society, reference was made to the Committee by the District Fisheries Officer and the Committee has taken the decision on 12.9.2008, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It is also submitted that the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Act does not require any personal - 4 - hearing to the society and verification of the members of the societies at the time of taking the decision by the Committee. It is also pointed out that reference should not always be made in writing and in the present case reference was orally made by the District Fisheries Officer, as there was no consensus between the members of the societies in the meeting held on 8.9.2008. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the private Respondent no.6 and having perused the impugned order 16.3.2008, Annexure-4, I am of the view that the Director, Fisheries has affirmed the decision taken by the Committee on 12.9.2008 in terms of the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Act, as there was no consensus amongst the societies about the distribution of the Jalkars in question, further I do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the Committee dated 12.9.2008, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 as also the order of the Director, Fisheries dated 16.3.2008, Annexure-4. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Before parting with this order, I would like to - 5 - observe that the District Fisheries Officer while making future reference to the Committee for decision in terms of the provisions contained in sub-clause (viii) of Section 7 of the Act, should make reference in writing. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)