Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by the Director, Fisheries, Government of Bihar in Case No. 20-02/06 by which the learned Director has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 was aggrieved by settlement of "Nokha Tank" with the petitioner for a period upto 31.3.2008 with effect from 1.4.2005. While setting aside the said settlement, the Director proceeded further and cancelled the settlement of thirteen other Jalkar settlements with the petitioner even though there was no appeal in that regard. Substantially, the grounds for cancelling the settlement in favour of the petitioner were: (i) that the petitioner Cooperative Society was registered on 26th April, 2005 and, as such, no settlement in its favour could be made which settlement shall be effective from 1st April, 2005, (ii) for making settlement, respondent No. 6 was not duly informed, and (iii) the settlements cannot be made in favour of "non-Machua". In his view, a "Machua" means a person who is a "Machua" by caste. The petitioner has assailed these grounds as grounds which are non est for the purposes of cancellation of the settlement made in its favour. Petitioner further asserts that the appeal being only in respect of one Nokha Tank Jalkar, the Director should not have proceeded and cancelled all the settlements made in favour of the petitioner. It is further asserted that so far as respondent No. 6 is concerned, he was the settlee of the Nokha Tank for almost a decade earlier which settlement was to end on 31.3.2005. He had been in default and had not been depositing necessary fee thereby expressing his unwillingness to continue and it is because of that and notwithstanding the fact that he was aware of the settlement coming to an end, he made no efforts to clear the dues and seek resettlement. Thus, there was no occasion to give notice to a person who had already by his conduct disqualified himself. Lastly, it was submitted that the Director erred in law in holding that a "Machua" means a "Machua" by caste. This is against the very statutory provision as engrafted in the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 wherein fisherman has been defined in Sec. 2, sub-section (viii) to mean a professional fisherman engaged in fishing and fish culture. Lastly, it was submitted that the Director erred in law in holding that a "Machua" means a "Machua" by caste. This is against the very statutory provision as engrafted in the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 wherein fisherman has been defined in Sec. 2, sub-section (viii) to mean a professional fisherman engaged in fishing and fish culture. This Court granted time to the State to file counter affidavit and virtually stayed the impugned order while noticing respondent No. 6 by order dated 5.12.2006. Notices have been validly served but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 6 nor has any counter affidavit been filed by the State. "In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission itself keeping in view the nature of controversy in question. 3. So far as the first ground for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner is concerned, suffice to say that the settlements were made after incorporation of the petitioners Cooperative Society. Therefore, on the relevant date that is when settlement was made, the petitioner-Society was very much in existence and if that be so then merely because the settlement period started with effect from 1.4.2005 whereas the Society was registered on 26.4.2005 is of no avail, The relevant date would be the date on which the settlement is made and that was after the incorporation of the Society. In that view of the matter, there is nothing wrong in making the settlement with the petitioner-Society notwithstanding it being registered with the financial year for which settlement was to be made. 4. Coming to the second ground with regard to no adequate notice having been issued, it is not disputed that respondent No. 6 was a defaulter. It is not in dispute that even at the appellate stage, respondent No. 6 sought to clear all the dues or as a matter of fact cleared all the dues against him. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 6 was aware that his settlement which had been made for almost a decade was to end on 31st March, 2005 when fresh settlements would be due but still he took no steps to clear his dues and that being so, he was, admittedly, a defaulter when the process of settlement was initiated and settlement made. That disentitled him to any settlement.. If respondent No. 6 was disentitled to get the settlement, there was no reason why he should have been given a notice of a fact of which he was fully aware. I, therefore, iind that even this ground is not sustainable. Further, where an appeal was preferred against the settlement of one Jalkar, I do not think it was permissible on part of the Director, Fisheries to proceed further and cancel all settlements made in lavour of the petitioner that is cancel settlements with regard to thirteen other Mars which were not even subject matter of appeal before him. To my mind, this is also a valid ground and correct ground for impugning the order in question and has to be sustained. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the declaration made by the Director of Fisheries with regard to the meaning of the term "Machua" virtually amounts to a death blow to petitioners Cooperative Society. A person may be a fisherman by caste or a fisherman by profession. A fisherman by caste may not be carrying on business as a fisherman for he may be otherwise gainfully employed in non-fishing business whereas a fisherman by profession is a person who carries on business of fishing may be not belonging to the caste of fisherman. When circulars were issued emphasising that settlements have to be made with fishermen, they were obviously with the intention of encouraging fishermen who were in the business of fishing meaning thereby persons who were in the business of fishing and not restricting this trade to one community alone for that would have been ultra vires the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 1(g). This position is clear if we refer to the Bihar Fish Jalkar Management Act, 2006 . Section 2, sub-section (viii) reads as follows: 2.......... (viii) "Fishermen" means the person who is a professional fisherman engaged in fishing and fish culture. 5. A bare reference to the said reference clearly shows that the reference to "fishermen" is "fishermen" by profession and not "fishermen" by caste. A person who may not be a fisherman by caste can still get into the business, acquire necessary experience and knowledge and, thus, would be competent to receive settlements. 5. A bare reference to the said reference clearly shows that the reference to "fishermen" is "fishermen" by profession and not "fishermen" by caste. A person who may not be a fisherman by caste can still get into the business, acquire necessary experience and knowledge and, thus, would be competent to receive settlements. If any other restrictive meaning is given to the term "fishermen" then in my opinion, it would be limiting a particular profession to a particular caste by law which is not permissible under our Constitution. Such a provision would be anti-secular and against Article 1,9(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and be ultra vires of the Constitution. Therefore, the declaration by the Director of Fisheries that "fisherman" would mean "fisherman" by caste is totally misconceived and misplaced. Therefore, all the grounds as noted in the order for cancelling the settlement in favour of the petitioner being non est, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside as such. The settlement as made in favour of the petitioner shall continue to run for its natural course. 6. This writ application is, thus, allowed.