BIDYADHARI SPILL MATSYAJIBI SAMABAYA SAMITY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. It was originally registered as far ago as 1929 and from time to time it took settlement of the fisheries in the Bidyadhari Spill Area. It is stated in the petition that the Society has developed these fisheries into planned and ideal fisheries. The last settlement taken by the petitioner society was to expire on the 31st March, 1960. The total area under settlement to the petitioner covered about 4000 bighas of land in the Bidyadhari Spill Area. It consisted of several settlements, including the four fisheries of the area of 246 bighas mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the petition. In the petition however, all mention of the remaining area has been left out. This application purports to be in respect of the settlement concerning these four fisheries, of an area of approximately 246 bighas. In all, the licenses issued to the petitioner, which expired on the 31st March, 1960 there was a clause to the effect that upon the expiration of the license, the licensee, meaning the petitioner, shall give up peaceful possession of the fishery to the Executive Engineer, Canals Division, or to a person authorised by him. If on the expiration of the term, the licensee was found to be in occupation, he shall be treated as a trespasser and liable to criminal proceedings being taken against him. It also laid down the amount of compensation that was to be paid for such unauthorised occupation. In contemplation of the expiration of the licenses, the petitioner society applied, on or about the 14th December, 1959 for a fresh lease. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner did not hear anything from Government with regard to the said application until the period of the existing license was over, but that on or about the 4th April, 1960 the petitioner society suddenly got a notice from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation, Tolly's Nulla, to the effect that it must give up possession of the fisheries referred to in paragraph 3 of the petition, immediately. Thereupon, the petitioner society pointed out that its application for a new license had not been dealt with, and thereafter it was allowed time till the 30th April, 1960 to vacate the area in question. It is about this time that the petitioner society learnt that the fisheries were going to be leased out to another society, namely, the Eastern Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. for the year 1960-61.

(2.) The complaint made in this application is that the rules require that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies should be consulted as to a desirable society that should take up the lease, and although in this case the Registrar was consulted and he recommended the petitioner and did not recommend the last-mentioned society, yet the petitipner was passed over in favour of the said society, to whom ultimately the license has been issued. This version of the facts however, is not strictly accurate. As I have stated above, the petitioner society had been holding 4000 bighas of fisheries in the Bidyadhari Spill Area. The Government consulted the Assistant Registrars of the Co-operative Societies concerned, about the respective applicants, and thereafter taking all matters into consideration, Government granted a settlement of about 3750 bighas to the petitioner society and only 245 bighas to the respondent No. 4. By letter dated the 26th March J.960 the petitioner society was informed by Government that about 3720 Bighas of fisheries in the said area would be granted to the petitioner and. on the 4th April, 1960 the petitioner society was directed to hand over possession of about 259 bighas out of which 245 bighas were settled with respondent No. 4. To this notice, the petitioner society by its letter dated the 6th April, 1960 asked for three months' lime for transferring their stocks from the said area. A copy of that letter is annexure 'U' to the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Sukhada Kanta Ray on the 23rd May, 1960. In that letter, no objections such as have been made in this petition were ever taken. It was simply stated that the society had a huge stock of fish in the area concerned and at least three months' time should be granted for making over possession. After enquiry into the matter, time was granted till the 30th April, 1960 on payment of a certain amount, as it was considered by the authorities that this was quite a sufficient period for removing the stocks. The petitioner society complied with the directions without any protest at the time, and on the 6th April, 1960 the petitioner society accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement of 3720 bighas mentioned above. Not being content with the settlement of this large area, an application has now been made to the effect that Government should have granted a settlement of the entire area to the petitioner society.

(3.) The first ground which has been made in the petition is that the respondent No. 4 is not a society fit or worthy of being granted a settlement. It is pointed out that the said society is very small and had limited resources and therefore was not in a position to conduct the fishery with the same efficiency as the petitioner. That however is a matter in which the Court can scarcely interfere. The fishery belongs to Government and it is for the Government to consider how best it should be administered. Secondly, the point taken is that rules 272 and 273 of the West Bengal Government Societies Manual 1953 apply and that Government has made this settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4 Contrary to the 'provisions of these rules. As to whether the West Bengal Government Societies Manual contains rules which are statutory rules or merely departmental orders is a vexed question. In the case of Gopal Dutt Pandey v. State of West Bengal, C. R. No. 1706 of 1958, D/- 20-8-58, which was cited before me, I proceeded on the footing that these were merely departmental orders and not statutory rules. It may be that Rule 20 of the West Bengitl Societies Acquisition Act has made a difference. But this aspect of it was not argued before me. In the affidavit in opposition herein, it has been stated that the West Bengal Societies Manual does not come into the picture at all because the fisheries in question are not administered by the Board of Revenue but by the State of West Bengal through the Irrigation and Waterways Department. It does appear from the record that it is the Irrigation and Waterways Department which deals with these fisheries and grants permit. It does not appear that the Board of Revenue is in any way concerned. The learned Advocate for the petitioner also proceeded upon the footing that the proper authority to administer the fisheries was the Irrigation and Waterways Department of the State of West Bengal.