Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned JC to AAG for respondent nos. 1 to 6 (State of Bihar), and Mr. Bashupati Singh for respondent no. 7 (Darbhanga Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samity Limited). 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.03/20.3.02 (Annexure 6), passed by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, in File No. Matsya Bandobasti 150/2002 (Rishikesh Kashyap, President, Darbhanga Matsyajivi Swabalambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Shivaji Nagar, Darbhanga V/s. District Fisheries Officer, Darbhanga), whereby settlement of the 35 Jalkars in question in favour of the petitioner herein for the period 2003-04 to 2004-05 has been cancelled and fresh settlements have been directed to be made in accordance with law and the directions made therein. 3. According to the writ petition, the 35 Jalkars in question situate within the Darbhanga Sadar Anchal for the period 1.4.2002 to 31.5.2005 was made in favour of the petitioner and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 86,295/- by way of reserve jama for the first year (1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003) vide letter dated 12.2.2002 (Annexure 5), from respondent no. 6 (the District Fisheries Officer/cum-Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga), to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the amount and engaged itself in the business of fishing. After a lapse of ten months, respondent no. 7 herein filed an application before the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, challenging the settlement on various grounds. After affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and on consideration of their submissions, the application has been allowed by the impugned order, the settlement in favour of the petitioner herein for the remainder of the period, namely, 2003-2005 has been cancelled, and directed to be settled in accordance with law and the directions made therein. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 7 herein has moved the departmental Secretary ten months after the settlement, an aspect noted but not discussed in the impugned order. He next submits that the impugned order wrongly concludes that the recommendation of the Department of Cooperative Societies is essential and was not submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order attaches unnecessary importance to the recommendations of the Department of Co-operative Societies which has a limited role in the present situation. He next submits that the impugned order wrongly concludes that the recommendation of the Department of Cooperative Societies is essential and was not submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order attaches unnecessary importance to the recommendations of the Department of Co-operative Societies which has a limited role in the present situation. The real and the important enquiry has to be conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries only because this is the administrative department for fishery settlements. He next submits that otiose circulars have been relied on in the impugned order. In his submission, the issue is governed by the circular dated 18.1.1992 (Annexure 2), issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He next submits that respondent no. 7 is a defaulter. He lastly submits that respondent no. 6 is in collusion with respondent no. 7, and the former has violated the interim order dated 28.2.2003 passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 submits that the relevant circulars lay down that in a situation where the settlement is not made by auction, but on the basis of the reserve jama, then it has to be done proportionately on the basis of the strength of number of membership of the Co-operative Societies. He submits that the settlement was in violation of the relevant circulars. He next submits that there was no recommendation of the Department of Co-operative Societies in favour of the petitioner which is imperative for the proper functioning of the Co-operative Societies in Bihar including issues relating to default. He next submits that respondent no. 7 is not a defaulter, and the petitioner is instead a defaulter. 6. Learned Govt. Counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that there is no recommendation of the Department of Co-operative Societies in favour of the petitioner. He next submits that everything being equal, the settlement has to be made proportionately in relation to the number of membership of the Cooperative Societies. 7. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issues are not free from difficulties caused by labyrinthine maze of circulars, administrative circulars and departmental letters. 7. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issues are not free from difficulties caused by labyrinthine maze of circulars, administrative circulars and departmental letters. The departmental Secretary in his impugned order, as well as learned counsel for the parties in support of their rival submissions, have relied on one or the other, which are either difficult to be deciphered in the perspective, or over-lapping, or seem to have fallen into desuetude. However, I take the view that i have taken in disposing of this writ petition for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow. It appears to me from a perusal of the impugned order that the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries lays considerable emphasis on the recommendations of the Department of Cooperative Societies and, if not obtained within the specified time, then the Co-operative society would not be a competent co-operative society for settlement for which reliance has been placed on a judgment of this court as well as departmental circulars. In view of the aim and object of such a recommendation, I do not wish to take a different view. The petitioner society had not submitted the recommendation of the Department of Co-operative Societies. The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out hereinbelow. It is manifest from a perusal of the same that the recommendation/report relates to the entire working of the applicant Co-operative Society as well as the position with regard to payment of government dues. The impugned order further notes that there was no recommendation of the Department of Co-operative Societies in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is difficult for this Court to overlook the importance of the report/recommendation of the Department of Co-operative Societies. 8. The impugned order also lays emphasis on the mode and manner of preference to one or the other of the three Cooperative Societies, namely, the one registered under 1935 Act, Swabalambi Society registered under the 1966 Act, and the one registered under 1935 Act but converted in terms of the 1996 Act, and of the important factor appears to be, the strength of the membership of the societies for grant of settlement proportionately. This aspect of the matter has weighed with the impugned order and therefore, the settlement for the remainder of the period, namely, 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2005, has been cancelled and directed to be re-settled in accordance with law and the directions made therein. This appears to be a valid consideration as per the circular in force. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not feel the necessity of examining the question of alleged delay on the part of respondent no. 7 in filing his application before the Departmental Secretary, nor do I feel the necessity of examining the question of alleged violation of the order dated 23.5.2003, passed by this Court. 10. I must clarify one aspect of the matter. Considerable arguments have been advanced before me that both the sides are defaulters, and also that remission application(s) before the appropriate authority is/are pending. It has further been submitted that so long the alleged amount of default is pending consideration by way of remission application, such person/cooperative society is not treated to be a defaulter and he can be considered for settlement on merits. The position has been clarified by the order dated 27.9.2002 (Annexure F), passed by a Division Bench of this Court on LPA No. 1017 of 2002 [reported in 2002(4) PLJR 779 ], wherein it has been held that the applicant of a remission application shall be entitled to consideration for settlement, provided he has provisionally paid the entire amount of alleged default subject to the result of the remission application. The relevant portion of the order is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "This Court is afraid it does not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. All that has happened is that the learned Judge has observed that if amounts be due and they have to be considered in remission proceedings, then, it would be better that the amount be paid and while the proceedings may remain pending the petitioner may be considered for the bid which it has made for ferry rights. All that has happened is that the learned Judge has observed that if amounts be due and they have to be considered in remission proceedings, then, it would be better that the amount be paid and while the proceedings may remain pending the petitioner may be considered for the bid which it has made for ferry rights. The Court cannot embroil the State into litigations that revenues will get embroiled in pending proceedings and yet those who have to receive contracts from the State will continue and enjoy the fruits of the contract while arrears are being adjudicated." Before making the settlement, the concerned authorities shali ensure that the party or parties in whose favour the settlement will be made has/have provisionally deposited the entire dues which are the subject-matter of the remission application. The unhappy experience of keeping the remission applications pending for inordinately long periods, obviously at the instance of and in collusion with, such applicants and the Government functionaries, has brought about such a situation. The government revenue can not suffer in this manner. 11 In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to make settlement in accordance with law and as per the directions in the impugned order. In case fresh settlements are made in favour of the petitioner, then the authorities shall ensure that he does not suffer at all period-wise. 12. Let copies of this order be handed over to the learned AAG I to be forwarded to the learned Land Reforms Commissioner, the Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries and the Secretary of Department of Co-operative Societies for the needful with particular reference to the observations made in paragraphs-7 and 10 hereinabove.