Patna High Court
Prabhat KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The respondent's cancellation of the settlement and declaration of the petitioners as defaulters without disposing of the remission petition is illegal, and the writ petition is disposed, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the matter afresh.
Summary
The petitioners, represented by the Secretary of Bardara Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., filed a writ of mandamus seeking an order restraining the State of Bihar and its officials from treating them as defaulters without first disposing of a pending remission petition under Section 12(v) of the Fish Jalkar Management Bihar Act, 2006. They alleged that the District Fisheries Officer had cancelled their settlement for the 2018‑19 period and declared them defaulters despite the petitioners having deposited earlier dues that should have been adjusted. The petitioners also contended that the cancellation was illegal because the remission petition remained pending. The State counsel raised no objection to the petition. Justice Rajiv Roy granted the petitioners liberty to raise the matter afresh and disposed of the writ petition without granting the mandamus. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority again.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent officials can declare the petitioners as defaulters and cancel their settlement without disposing of the pending remission petition under Section 12(v) of the Fish Jalkar Management Bihar Act, 2006.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to restrain such action.
- Whether the respondent acted within its jurisdiction in cancelling the settlement.
Subjects
- mandamus
- fisheries
- remission petition
- defaulter
- jurisdiction
- administrative law
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13978 of 2019
======================================================
1. Prabhat Kumar S/o Ranveer Sahni R/o Village-Hattha, P.O. -Hattha, P.S.
Diyar, District-Muzaffarpur Secretary of Bardara Prakhand, M.S.S. Ltd.
Bardara
2. Bardara Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Bardara, through its
elected Secretary Prabhat Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandary and
Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur
3. The Director Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna
4. The Under Secretary Animal Husbandary and Fisheries Department, Bihar,
Patna
5. The Joint Director Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna
6. The Dy. Director Fisheries Department, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
7. The District Fisheries Officer cum Chief Executive Officer Muzaffarpur
8. The Remission Committee through Collector, Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, AC to SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar , learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, learned State Counsel.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents not to treat the
petitioners as defaulter without disposal of
the remission petition as provided in section
12 (v) of the Fish Jalkar Management Bihar
Act 2006. Respondent no. 7 has wrongly
Patna High Court CWJC No.13978 of 2019(4) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
cancelled the settlement of period 2018-19
vide letter no. 350 dated 28.02.2019 without
disposed of the remission petition, such
action of respondent no. 7 is wholly illegal in
the eye of law. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has deposited the revenue a sum of
Rs. 5,14,897/-vide receipt no. in 028441
dated 13.12.2017 contained Annexure-2 for
the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 1st
instalment of 2017-18 which was previous
dues that may be adjusted towards the dues
for 2017-18 but respondent no. 7 without
adjusting the previous deposite amount paid
by the petitioner society and without
disposed of the remission petition which is
pending before the authority, the respondent
no. 7 is declared the petitioners as defaulter
and cancelled their settlement such action of
respondent no. 7 is wholly illegal, without
jurisdiction and the same is fit to be quashed.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
accepted that the petitioner approached this Court in the
capacity of the Secretary of the said fisheries society and is
presently not serving on the said post. Secondly, the settlement
period also has come to an end.
4. In that background, he be granted liberty if a fresh
cause arises.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13978 of 2019(4) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
5. The State Counsel has no objection.
6. In that background, granting liberty to the petitioner
to agitate afresh, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…