KASHI SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pashupati Prasad Sinha for the petitioners, and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, JC to GP VI for respondent nos. 1 to 7, and Mr. Yogendra Mishra for respondent no. 8 (Manigachhi Vikas Prakhand Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd.). This writ petition is directed against the order bearing memo no. 487, dt. 17.7.03 (Annexure 1), issued under the signature of respondent no. 7 (District Fisheries Officer -cum -Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga), whereby 29 Jalkars have been settled in favour of respondent no. 8 for a period of two years, namely, 2003 to 2004. and 2004 to 2005. The petitioners complain before this Court that respondent no. 8 was a defaulter on the date of the settlement on various counts and was, therefore, disqualified from consideration notwithstanding which the settlement has been made in favour of respondent no. 8.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 8 submits that the dues have subsequently been paid by respondent no. 8 and it ceased to be a defaulter. He next submits that the petitioner society is a Swabalambi Society and cannot have settlement of the Jalkars in question and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. He next submits that the writ petition raises the question of only one dues of respondent no. 8, and the remaining dues have been raised in the supplementary affidavit. or the reply of the petitioners and, therefore, cannot be noticed.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is difficult to go into the labyrinth of the figures and the dues placed by the learned counsel for the parties before me which have further been complicated by incoherent pleadings. However, it is clear beyond doubt that settlement of the 29 Jalkars in question was made by order dated 17.7.2003 on which date respondent no. 8 had to pay a number of dues to the State Government. On the own showing of respondent no. 8, as well as that of the State Government, the dues have been paid much after the settlement was made. For example, a sum of Rs.69,491/ -, being the dues for the period 2002 -03, was directed to be deposited as per letter no. 456, dt. 8.7.2003, vide Annexure 3. The letter from respondent no. 7 to respondent no. 8 states that at least half of the amount should be deposited forthwith. and the balance should be deposited soon thereafter. It appears from this document that respondent no. 8 deposited Rs. 35,000/ - on 16.7.2003. Without going into further details, it is manifest that half of this amount was perhaps deposited on 16.7.2003, and the balance of the amount was deposited after the settlement. Similar is the position with respect to the other dues which, according to respondent no. 8, were deposited on 14.2.2004, 24.2.2004 and 28.2.2004. This position is manifest from the counter affidavit of the respondent authorities as well as respondent no. 8, that the latter owed large sums of money with respect to different settlements for earlier periods and most of which have been paid much after the date of the settlement. It is thus manifest that respondent no. 8 was a defaulter on the date of the settlement.