Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1418 of 2000, by which the writ application filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 27.1.2000 passed by the State Government cancelling the settlement of the Jalkars (fisheries) falling within Patna City area in favour of the appellant and settling the same in favour of respondent no. 5 by order dated 1.2.2000 has been dismissed. 2. The dispute in this case relates to the settlement of the Jalkars (fisheries) falling within Patna City Anchal. The appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, whereas, respondent no. 5 Sandalpur Matsyajivi Swavlambi Sahyog Samiti Limited is a Society registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. According to the Government decision, the settlement has to be made with the Fishermen Co-operative Societies and in case the settlement is not made in favour of the said Societies for one reason or the other, then the settlement has to be made by open advertisement/auction. 3. In the present writ application, the periods of settlement of the Jalkars in question are from 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001- 2002. 4. The appellants case is that on 7.9.1999 the District Co-operative Officer, Patna, recommended for settlement of Jalkars in question for a period of three years in favour of the appellant. It was also provided therein that the arrears amount may be realised in two instalments within the period mentioned therein. On 8.9.1999, the District Fisheries Officer, Patna, made a settlement of the Jalkars in favour of the appellant on deposit of the half of the amount of arrears and a part of the amount of reserved Jama for the year 1999-2000. Thereafter, Parwana was issued on 8.9.1999 in respect of the seven Jalkars by two memoes (Annexures 6 series to the writ application). The remaining amount of instalment and arrears were also deposited. On 1.2.2000, the appellant-Society was informed by the District Fisheries Officer by letter no. 40 of the even date that the settlement in its favour has been cancelled by the State Government by order dated 27.1.2000, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. Copies of the order dated 27.1.2000 have been annexed as Annexure 1 series to the writ application. 5. 40 of the even date that the settlement in its favour has been cancelled by the State Government by order dated 27.1.2000, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. Copies of the order dated 27.1.2000 have been annexed as Annexure 1 series to the writ application. 5. Thereafter on 2.2.2000, the Jalkar was settled with respondent no. 5 on payment of first instalment and Parwana was issued. The said settlement has been made for a period of three years. A copy of the Parwana has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed in L.P.A. on behalf of respondent no. 5. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cancellation of settlement of the Jalkars in question in favour of the appellant is vitiated in law on account of non-observance of the principle of natural justice as the settlement has been cancelled without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing. 7. The stand of the respondents and the State, on the other hand, is that the appellant was defaulter in payment of the Government dues and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Fisheries Officer to make settlement of the Jalkars in question in favour of the appellant as the competent authority to make such settlement was the State Government. 8. Admitted fact is that the Director, Fisheries Department, ordered that the arrears be paid in instalments and, thereafter, the settlement of the Jalkars be made in favour of the appellant-Society and, thereafter, after payment of the said amount, the settlement was made and Parwana was issued in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, it has been cancelled by Annexure 1 and the settlement has been made in favour of respondent no. 5 by issuing Parwana, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 in the L.P.A. 9. Thus, the admitted position is that the State Government has cancelled the settlement in favour of the appellant without giving it an opportunity of being heard. 10. The basic requirement of natural justice are two folds; firstly to make to the person concerned known the nature of accusation and secondly to give opportunity to state the case. The order of cancelling settlement visits with civil consequences. 10. The basic requirement of natural justice are two folds; firstly to make to the person concerned known the nature of accusation and secondly to give opportunity to state the case. The order of cancelling settlement visits with civil consequences. When a person is visited with civil consequences, the order cannot be passed without complying with the aforesaid requirement of principle of natural justice. Admittedly the order of cancellation of the settlement in favour of the appellant has been passed behind his back. Accordingly, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1 series are vitiated on the said ground and consequential settlement in favour of respondent no. 5 by Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed on his behalf in the L.P.A. is also vitiated. 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 1 series to the writ application and the consequential settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 5 and the Parwana issued in his favour (Annexure A series to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 in the L.P.A.) are quashed. 12. During the course of argument, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was the defaulter and the settlement in his favour was also beyond the competence of the District Fisheries Officer. This question cannot be gone into the writ application. However, if the said facts are proved, then that may be a ground for cancellation. However, we are not expressing any opinion whether the aforesaid grounds are available in this case or not. We are of the view that such question has to be considered by the authority concerned. In this case, we are of the opinion that the Director, Fisheries Department, should not be associated with the decision of the matter. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Patna, who is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and take a final decision within a month from the date of production of the copy of this order. 13. Both the parties are directed to be present before the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Patna, on 27.9.2000. 13. Both the parties are directed to be present before the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Patna, on 27.9.2000. If any of the parties does not appear or co-operate in disposal of the matter then it will be open for the Secretary to dispose of the matter on the basis of the materials available on the record and after hearing the parties present. Till final decision is taken by the Secretary, the department concerned will manage and take control of the Jalkars in question. 14. In the result, this appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.