Judgment 1. This application has been filed by the President and Secretaries of Bakarganj Machua Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Manigachhi Prakhand Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Hayagahat Vikassh Pakhand Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. and Bahadurpur Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Bahadurpur, for quashing the letter no. 29 dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure-6) issued by the Secretary of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department whereby direction has been issued to make settlement of sairat among Fisheries Co-operative Society and Self Supporting Co-operative Societies in proportion to their membership strength. Impugned order has been challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, based on wrong conclusion of circular no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and contrary to Section 57 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and Section 50 of the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. 2. Petitioner no. 1 is the society, earlier registered under Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 but subsequently registered under Bihar Self Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are societies registered under Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. 3. Initially settlement of Jalkars were made under 1935 Act but after conversion of societies and their registration under 1996 Act, the Department of Revenue and Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries came out with suitable amended circular under which preferences in settlement were given to societies registered under 1935 Act with respect to Government Sairat. By notification no. 2443-R dated 26.12.1986, Fishery Sairats which were exclusively transferred to Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department were to be settled by the department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries only in order to save the interest of the societies registered under 1935 Act and societies which earlier registered under 1935 Act were converted as Self Supporting Societies under 1996 Act. The Co-operative Department came out with a letter i.e. no. 1954-Patna dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure-3) which was contrary to various circulars of Revenue Department and Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department. This letter dealt with registration, settlement and distribution of finances to the societies registered under 1935 Act as well as 1996 Act. By this letter it was directed that within the work area of each Panchayat there should be only two or three registered societies and recommendation of settlement of Jalkars should be made taking the Panchayat as a unit. Each society within the Panchayat should get settlement in proportion to the members of that society. By this letter it was directed that within the work area of each Panchayat there should be only two or three registered societies and recommendation of settlement of Jalkars should be made taking the Panchayat as a unit. Each society within the Panchayat should get settlement in proportion to the members of that society. Since by this letter the distinction in class of societies registered under 1996 Act as well as societies registered under 1935 Act and societies earlier registered under 1935 Act but subsequently converted to Self Supporting Co-operative Societies and registered under 1996 Act was totally ignored the societies which were registered under 1935 Act and also those societies which were registered under 1935 Act but subsequently converted and registered under 1996 Act, being aggrieved by this letter and the directions contained therein challenged this letter in C.W.J.C. no. 13952 of 2001 and by order dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure-4) the effect of this letter no. 1954 dated 4.7.2001 was put in abeyance. Case of the petitioners is that only in order to circumvent the order dated 6.12.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 13592 of 2001, the Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries came out with letter no. 29 dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure-6) with identical terms and conditions and reissuing same direction which has been stayed by the High Court. Letter no. 1954 dated 4.7.2001 issued by the Secretary, Co-operative Department and letter no. 29 dated 15.3.2003 issued by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, have been issued by same person in two different capacities. Since the earlier letter issued by Annexure-3 was stayed by the High Court, similar directions of the Secretary of other departments, should not have been issued as it amounts contempts of the order passed by High Court. This letter has been challenged on the ground that it is contemptuous, illegal and without jurisdiction. Petitioners have also assailed the impugned letter on the ground that respondent no. 2 by issuing this letter has tried to amend and change the Governments decision/policy at his own level, which is not permissible in law. 4. Intervenor-respondent no. 8 is a Swabilambi Society registered under Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. His case is that letter no. 29 dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure-6) is not similar to letter no. 1954 dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure-3) rather this circular is based on earlier circular no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. 4. Intervenor-respondent no. 8 is a Swabilambi Society registered under Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. His case is that letter no. 29 dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure-6) is not similar to letter no. 1954 dated 4.7.2001 (Annexure-3) rather this circular is based on earlier circular no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. 1378 dated 25.4.2000 (Annexure-2), which clearly says that settlement of Jalkar should be made in favour of Co-operative Society on the basis of number of members in the society but simultaneously it has been mentioned in the aforesaid circulars that in settlement of Jalkar priority should be given to the society registered under the provisions of Bihar Co-operative Society Act, 1935 and converted under the provisions of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Act, 1996. The word priority has been clarified by the Secretary of the Co-operative Department in Circular no. 1105 dated 2.4.2002 (Annexure-5) which says priority among the equals. By the impugned circular every society registered in the Anchal will be benefited and get settlement of Jalkars as per number of members of his society. This circular has been issued for the welfare of large number of fishermen. The circular is one and has been issued in terms of Section 3 of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 which clearly says that by distribution among the members should be in proportion to their transactions with the Co-operative societies as the number of members is only the criteria for the settlement of Jalkars in favour of the Co-operative Society. Hence, the circular impugned is perfectly valid and justified which does not require any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that the circular contained in Annexure-6 has been issued under the principles laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. As the case of the petitioners is that impugned letter is contrary to circular no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. 1378 Patna dated 25.4.2000 (Annexure-2) and the case of intervenor-respondent is that the impugned letter has been issued on the basis of Annexure-2 and Annexure-8, it is essential that content of Annexure-2 and Annexure-8 should be discussed and examined whether the impugned letter is contrary to the earlier two letters. 6. Letter no. 1378 (Annexure-2) deals with the statement of Jalkar with Societies registered at block level. 6. Letter no. 1378 (Annexure-2) deals with the statement of Jalkar with Societies registered at block level. Clause-5 of this letter says that societies registered under 1935 Act at local level should be given preference in settlement over Societies registered under 1996 Act. Comparison can be made in between two different Societies registered under 1935 Act, but not in between Societies registered under 1935 Act and Societies registered under 1996 Act. Settlement considering ratio of members, not be made in between the Societies registered under 1935 Act and 1996 Act, meaning thereby that the Societies registered under 1935 Act and 1996 Act have been treated on two different footing. They belong to two different classes and there cannot be any comparison between the two Societies. Similar direction has been reiterated in letter no. 1180 (Annexure-8). Directions and guidelines contained in Annexure-2 and Annexure-8 were issued treating the Societies registered under 1996 Act and 1935 Act as two different classes of societies. Respondent no. 8, the intervenor has stated that the impugned letter has been issued by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries just to give sufficient opportunity to all Societies. The object of both the letters is that members of every Society should be given sufficient opportunity for their livelihood and it is based on equal opportunity to each Society. 7. in reply to the submission learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the question of equality as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be considered only amongst the equals. The concept of equality and equal protection, encompasses social and economic justice in a democratic country. Equal protection means right to equal treatment in similar circumstances among equals. Equal treatment cannot be among unequals, and any such order or decision is liable to be struck down, since it is discriminatory. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. Since the Societies which are registered under 1935 Act and the Societies registered under 1996 Act are two different classes of Societies, they cannot be treated equal and any equality of opportunity in between these two Societies cannot be a ground for issuing any letter by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. C.W.J.C. no. 9392 of 2004 was fifed for quashing the letter no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. C.W.J.C. no. 9392 of 2004 was fifed for quashing the letter no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. 1378 dated 25.4.2000 (Annexure-2) wherein it has been held that priority regarding settlement should be given to fishermen of Co-operative Society registered under 1935 Act. Now the question arises that why priority should be given to the Societies registered under 1935 Act over the Societies registered under 1996 Act. Societies, which are registered under 1935 Act, are under the control of the Government. In some of the Societies Government policy is also involved and they are running under the conditions laid down by the Government. That is the reason for which it has been decided in case of settlement of any Government Sairat that the Societies which are registered under 1935 Act should be given priority over the Societies registered under 1996 Act. The Societies registered under 1996 Act are totally independent of any Government interference. These Societies are created by the individual members on the basis of their own bye-laws and they are not directly and strictly under the terms and conditions and control of the Government. This being the difference in between the two societies, it has rightly been directed in different circulars that in case of settlement of Government Sairat, priority should be given to the Societies registered under 1935 Act over the Societies registered under 1996 Act. 8. XXX 9. XXX 10. So far the impugned letter is concerned, the object of this letter is to treat both the societies on similar footing. It has not been specified that the comparison on the basis of the strength of membership will be made only in between the two registered Societies registered under the same Act. Simply it has been stated that the settlement will be made in terms of the strength of the members of the Society. The distinction which has been made in the earlier circular, contained in Annexures-2 and 8, has totally been ignored by the impugned letter in that view of the matter, it has rightly been challenged by the petitioners that the impugned letter has been issued ignoring the earlier Government circular wherein the right of the Societies registered under 1935 Act has been protected. 11. Further the letter which has been issued by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries is not on the direction of the Government. 11. Further the letter which has been issued by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries is not on the direction of the Government. It is the order passed by the Secretary in his individual capacity. As such, it cannot be considered to be a Government order passed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned letter will not have any effect on the Government orders. The earlier circular contained in letter no. 1180 dated 5.7.2000 (Annexure-8) and letter no. 1378 dated 25.4.2000 (Annexure-2) which are Government decisions and issued in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, will be effective for any settlement. Impugned letter no. 29 dated 15.3.2003 has been issued by the respondent no. 2 going against the earlier Government orders, as such, it is quashed.