Bariarpur Fisherman Cooperative Society and Another vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.K. Katriar, J.—Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra for the Petitioner, learned JC to AAG I for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, and Mr. Pashupati Sinha for Respondent No. 7.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure 11), and 5.4.2002/15.5.2002 (Annexure 13), whereby it has been held that the three Jalkars, namely, Taufir, Tikarampur and Piperdah, are now in the Munger Anchal, in the district of Munger after trifurcation of the erstwhile Jamalpur Anchal into three Anchals, and for the consequential direction that the settlements of these three Jalkars made in favour of Respondent No. 7 be cancelled and settled in favour of the Petitioners.

According to the writ petition, prior to the commencement of the current dispute, there was the undivided Jamalpur Anchal in the district of Munger which has since been trifurcated into three Anchals and now known as Bariarpur Anchal, Jamalpur Anchal, and Munger Anchal, vide Notification dated 8.2.84 (Annexure A), and published in the Bihar Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 14.6.94 (Annexure B). The Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 7 are registered societies under the provisions of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act prior to the division of the Jamalpur Anchal. Rule-15(1) of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that the bye-laws must indicate the area of operation of the cooperative society. According to the Petitioners, its bye-laws registered during the period of the undivided Jamalpur Anchal included the aforesaid three Jalkars and therefore, had been getting settlement of the same in view of its area of operation Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has taken me through various orders passed by the authorities under the Act in exercise ''of their quasi-judicial functions that the three Jalkars have always been settled in favour of the Petitioner on account of its area of operation indicated in its bye-laws registered in terms of Section 11 of the Act, and adjudication of the said dispute at various stages were in terms of Section 48(d) of the Act, and the same has become final in view of the provisions of Section 48(9) of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the three Jalkars in question shall continue to be with the Bariarpur Anchal even after division of the erstwhile Jamalpur Anchal. He submits that the issue has been concluded by order No. 29, dated 19.3.1963 (Annexure 1), passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. The impugned orders dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure 11), and 5.4.2002/15.5.2002 (Annexure 13), being inconsistent with the said order dated 19.3.63 (Annexure 1), is liable to be struck down. Counsel lastly submits that the division of Jamalpur Anchal has in fact not taken place.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 has opposed the writ petition and submits that the Petitioner Society is a chronic defaulter and has, therefore, disqualified himself from any settlement at all including the three Jalkars in question. He next submits that the Jamalpur Anchal has been trifurcated into Bariarpur Anchal, Jamalpur Anchal and Munger Anchal and now fall in the Munger Anchal. The area of operation is always confined to the Anchal and in the event of any such reorganisation of an Anchal, the area of operation automatically gets adjusted. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 366 (Bhawanipur Fishermen''s Co-op. Society v. State of Bihar). This position has been clarified by the Govt. circular No. 436/Fishery dated 13.3.2001.

Learned JC to AAG I has also opposed the writ petition.

Having considered the rival submissions, it appears to me that the erstwhile Jamalpur Anchal has been trifurcated into Bariarpur, Jamalpur, and Munger Anchal, as is evidenced by the Government Notification dated 8.2.96 (Annexure A, and the Gazette Notification dated 14.6.1994 (Annexure B). Learned Counsel for the Respondents are right in their submission that the area of operation of a cooperative society is confined to an Anchal which automatically gets adjusted with reorganisation of an Anchal and the Jalkars would be within the area of operation of the cooperative society wherein they are situate. The judgment of this Court in Bhawanipur Fishermen''s Co-op. Society (supra) supports the contention of the Respondents wherein a similar issue had been dealt with. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have rightly relied on the government instruction as per letter No. 436/Fishery dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure 5), issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery to the Divisional Commissioners which supports the contentions advanced on behalf of the Respondents. The same is reproduced below for the facility of quick reference:

Learned Counsel for the Respondents are further right in their submission that the Petitioner Society is a habitual defaulter and has, therefore, disqualified itself from settlement of the three Jalkars in question. This position is manifest from the order-sheet of Misc. Case No. 1 of 1999-2000 (Maheshwar Sahni v. District Fishery Officer) of the Court of District Magistrate, District Darbhanga (Annexure J to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7) which records that no settlement should be made in favour of the Petitioner in view of the arrears of Rs. 5,64,720/-. It further appears from inter-departmental communication dated 2.7.97 (Annexure J), from the District Fishery Officer, Munger, to the Petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 5,64,720/- is the outstanding dues against it, apart from the sum of Rs. 4,44,000/- which is the subject matter of its remission application. It further appears from the chart dated 1.7.97, which is at page 185 of the brief, stating the amount of remission allowed to different co-operative societies, and a sum of Rs. 57,458/- has been allowed to the Petitioner against the said claim of Rs. 4,44,000/-. If further appears from the order-sheet of District Certificate Case No. 1 of 1990-91 (State v. Bipin Sahni, Mantri, Bariarpur Fishermens'' Co-op. Society (Annexure K to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 7) that a sum of Rs. 1,60,942/- was the amount of arrears against the Petitioner and sought to be recovered by the certificate proceedings. According to the break-up given in the order-sheet, the dues are for the period 1988-89 to 1989-90. Although it appears to be a fairly old case, the Petitioners made attempt to satisfy this Court that the dues have been satisfied.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.