Judgment 1. The order impugned on the writ petition is dated 8 January, 1996. The petitioner-appellants apparently were challenging the certificate action for realisation of dues out of a contract for granting fishery rights. The dues were not paid by the petitioner-appellants. 2. The petitioner-appellants contention on the writ petition was that the amount cannot be recovered in law as a public demand. The contention was negatived by the learned judge holding that the contract, in question, is one which attracts, should payment not be made, recovery as a public debt. This court has no reason to differ with the order recorded on the writ petition. A perusal of the record of the writ petition itself and the proceedings which were recorded before the Collector, Muzaffarpur, clearly show that the petitioner-appellants are not strangers to the area when they sought assignment of fishery rights from the year 1977 continuously. Subsequently, a schedule of default in payment was recorded by the Collector. Every year the petitioner-appellants left a balance to be cleared as arrears and did not clear the outstandings. Ultimately, the petitioner-appellants virtually invited recovery proceeding for realisation of the amount due. 3. The submission which has been made on behalf of the petitioner-appellants to evade payment on the ground that the amount cannot be realised as a public debt is inequitable. For long years the petitioner-appellants had been granted fishery rights. In the circumstances, the petitioner-appellants are obliged to clear the arrears. In between the petitioner-appellants no.2 had also been detained in civil prison for not making payment against the arrears. Further, after 73rd and 74th amendment the right to receive contracts of fisheries is an aspect which has been passed on to the Panchayats. Panchayats are the third tier of the government under the constitution of India. In the circumstances the argument that the dues are not public dues is hardly available to the petitioner-appellants. 4. As the dues are pending since long and the petitioner-appellants are taking recourse to legal submissions to avoid an admitted debt, this offends the equity of the contract. The respondents will ensure that unless the petitioner-appellants clear the dues neither the petitioner-appellant no.1 (Katra Fisherman Co-operative Society) nor any of its constituents will be granted fishery rights. 5. Appeal dismissed.