M.P Varma, J.:— Petitioner No. 1 Daudpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. Dinapur through its Secretary has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of orders, contained in annexure ‘1’ and annexure ‘1/1’ passed by respondent No. 2 Additional Collector, and Collector, Patna making settlement of the two Jalkars in favour of respondent No. 8 the Digha Ghat Fishermen's Co-operative Society. Other petitioners 2 to 7 are the members and office-bearers of the Managing Committee of petitioner No. 1. It is a registered co-operative society under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Societies Act’). This Daudpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as “Daudpur Society”) has got its bye-laws and in furtherance of the cause of the society, according to the bye-laws, falls in the area of its operation. This takes settlement of Jalkars' rights, which settlement is done by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar, Bihta and Dinapur Anchals are within the area of operation and the following two Jalkars fall in the Bihta and Dinapur Anchals:

(i) Sone Sota Touzi Nos. 5340, 409 and 3732 from village Dinapur Sahajadpur Takia up to Maner Ghogharanpur.

(ii) Usri Nala-Plot No. 1.

Both the Jalkars fall within the sub-division of Dinapur.

2. The Additional Collector, Revenue (respondent No. 2) issued notices for the settlement of the aforesaid two Jalkars and the copies of the notices were sent to this petitioner and also to respondent No. 4, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patna. It is stated that this petitioner, as well as respondent No. 8, applied for the settlement of the aforesaid Jalkars. It has been claimed on behalf of the petitioner that it is the policy of the State that co-operative societies will be given preference in the matter of settlement of sairats over other individuals and it is also the policy of the State that settlement of such saiarats in favour of a particular co-operative society in whose area of operation the sairat lies should be made and no other co-operative society can operate legally in that area. Respondent No. 6 District Co-operative Officer, Patna keeping the aforesaid policy of the Government in view recommended for the settlement of the aforesaid Jalkars for the year 1980-1981 in favour of the petitioner Doudpur Society as the Jalkars are within its area of operation. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Hon'ble Minister of Co-operation also wrote to the Collector, Patna recommending therein that the Jalkars falling within the area of the Doudpur Society be settled with it and a copy of this letter was sent to the Additional Collector respondent No. 2. A copy of the letter of recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister has been filed as Annexure 5 (sic). The Anchal Adhikari, in his turn submitted a report (vide annexure 6) to respondent No. 2 stating therein that the petitioner's society, i.e the Daudpur Society was in arrear, who, on consideration of the facts of the case, settled both the jalkars, i.e Sone Sota and also Usri Nala Jalkar to respondent No. 8 Dighaghat Fishermen's Co-operative Society as per orders contained in annexures 1 and 1/1. The validity and the legality of these two orders have been challenged and a prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of these two orders.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is not only arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, but it is also palpably erroneous. The respondent No. 2 (Additional Collector) has made a departure from the settled policy of the Department of Co-operation in making settlement of the Jalkars with respondent No. 8, as the two Jalkars do not lie within the area of its operation. It is contended that the area of operation of respondent No. 8 is Dighaghat and Phulwari Anchals and does not include Bihta and Dinapur Anchals, inasmuch as the settlement is in violation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Minister, Co-operative Department.

4. It has next been urged that respondent No. 2 wrongly held the petitioner to be in arrear of Government revenue or a defaulter in payment thereof. It has been stated that the Government of Bihar have constituted a State Sairat Remission Committee for examining the claims for remission put forward by the Fishermen Co-operative Societies in the State. This committee is competent to recommend or reject the claim, to remissions. A copy of the resolution has been annexed as annexure 15 to this writ application. The case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time, this society had moved for remission of the Government dues before the District Remission Committee. The correct procedure before the District Remission Committee is to send all such claims of remission to the State Remission Committee, which is the final authority to grant or to reject the cases and claims of remission. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the District Remission Committee, but the petitioner had preferred appeal which was pending before the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Co-operation and therefore, for all such practical purposes the petitioner's society must not have been deemed to be in arrear when the appeal was pending. Respondent No. 2, therefore, took a wrong view of calling this petitioner as a defaulter and consequently landed into error in rejecting the claim of this petitioner and settled the sairats with respondent No. 8 Dighaghat Society.

5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and also on behalf of respondent No. 8, who had earlier filed caveat in this application. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3, it has been admitted that the jalkars in question are within the area of operation of the Doudpur Society. It has also been stated that if the society, in whose area the operation of Jalkars lies makes default in payment of Government revenue of the previous year, the settlement of the Jalkars can very well be made with any other society recommended by the Department or even to a private individual by public auction. However the co-operative societies are to be given preference over private individuals. It was asserted on their behalf in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's society was in arrear with respect to sairat dues of the previous year and the case for remission was rejected by the District Remission Committee. In other words, it has been stated that claim for remission was not binding on the date when the settlement was made with respondent No. 8. It has also been stated that respondent No. 4 the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies had reported some complaint regarding irregularities done by the petitioner's society in the previous year and did not recommend for the settlement in his favour. Respondent No. 4 had, rather recommended for settlement of these Jalkars with respondent No. 8 Dighaghat society and on consideration of these facts the Jalkars were not settled with the petitioner's society.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 8 it has been said that the Jalkars in question, as referred to in Annexures 1 and 1/1 of the writ petition were settled in accordance with law by respondent No. 2 on 30-9-80 and this settlement was approved even by District Magistrate, Patna. Agreement was also executed and Parwana in favour of the respondent No. 8 Dighaghat Society was also issued and they came in possession of an area exercising their rights of fisheries over the jalkars. It was, however, admitted that preference with respect to such settlement is given to the concerned co-operative society, in whose area of operation the Jalkars lie, but at the same time, it has been asserted that if the concerned co-operative society is in default in making payment of Government revenue regarding previous year, the settlement can very well be made with any other society. It has also been stated that the writ petitioner had suppressed certain material facts namely, commission of various irregularities and working of the society including non-deposit of the arrears and a dispute with respect to the petitioner's society is pending before the Joint Registrar-respondent No. 3. It has also been stated that the petitioner's society is composed of the two brothers Jawahar Lal Sahni, who claims to be an honorary Secretary and Lalbabu Sahni claiming as ex-Secretary. Petitioner No. 5, the Vice President of the Society is the maternal uncle of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner No. 3 is also their close relation and that this society does not represent the interest of the fishermen of the area. It has also been stated that in supersession proceeding the respondent No. 4 Joint Registrar superseded the Managing Committee of which the petitioner No. 1 represents the society claiming to be a Secretary and a copy of the order of the Joint Registrar has been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to that counter-affidavit. It has also been alleged that Lal Babu Sahni has committed some forgery in the proceeding of the annual general meeting showing his own brother Jawahar Lal Sahni as Secretary and the Joint Registrar respondent No. 4 has passed some orders that the annual general meeting of the society was not an appropriate meeting as it was non est. In these circumstances, it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the high prerogative jurisdiction of writ of this Court.

7. It is, however, admitted case of the parties that the two jalkars lie within the area of operation of the petitioner's society. It is also admitted position that normally the Jalkars should be settled with the society in whose area of operation the Jalkar lies and the settlement may be made with any other society only if the expediency of the situation so requires. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner's society was in fact, in arrear. But this has been denied by the petitioner on the ground that there was an appeal pending for remission of the government revenue. It is also admitted by the petitioner that claim for remission was made before the Sairat Remission Committee, which had rejected its claim and against the order of rejection an appeal was preferred. On behalf of the respondents it has been urged that the claim for remission having been not found genuine by the District Remission Committee, it rejected its claim for remission by its resolution dated 17-7-1980. Annexure 15 refers to the constitution of the Sairat Remission Committee for looking into the claims for remission put forward by the Fishermen Co-operative Society in the State, who have taken settlement of Jalkars. This speaks of the fact that the committee, so constituted, will hear the representation of the Fishermen Co-operative Society and after due consideration of their case will recommend to the Government about the genuineness of the claim or otherwise and the extent to which the remission should be allowed in each case. In the instant case there was no question of making any recommendation to the Government for remission of the claim as it was not found genuine. It is, therefore, incorrect to argue on behalf of the petitioner that the final authority in the matter of remission is the State Remission Committee which had not taken any decision with reference to the remission claimed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find that the petitioner could not show that there was any recommendation made by the Remission Committee to the State Government for consideration of the claim and in absence thereof the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that no such claim was pending before the Government and it cannot be said that there was any appeal pending before any other authority in the matter for consideration. It was, therefore, rightly contended by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 that the petitioner's society was in arrear and in view of this exigency the settlement of the two Jalkars in question was made with respondent No. 8. I, therefore, find no illegality in the orders contained in Annexures 1 and 1/1 relating to the settlement of the aforesaid two Jalkars in favour of the respondent No. 8. I therefore, do not propose to interfere with the orders.

8. Yet there is another reason why the petitioner does not deserve the protection under the prerogative writ of this Court. From Annexure ‘B’ it is gathered that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Patna (respondent No. 4) superseded the Managing Committee of the petitioner's society, of which petitioner No. 2 Lal Babu Sahni is the own brother of Jawahar Sahni, who claims to be the Honorary Secretary of the Society. It has also been held that Lal Babu Sahni committed certain forgery to show his brother Jawahar Sahni as the Secretary of the society and has further held that all other members are the relation of Lal Babu Sahni. These circumstances fully indicate that the hands of Lal Babu Sahni are not clean and this disentitles him for any relief in the writ. This application is therefore, dismissed. I do not propose to pass any order for costs.

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.:— I agree.

Petition dismissed.