ORDER : Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a self-supporting Fishermen's Co-operative Society and petitioner no. 2 is the Chief Executive of the said Society. They have filed this writ application asserting that in terms of the provisions of the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, the reserve jama of Jalkars is to be fixed over and above 15% of the reserve jama fixed in the previous year, but ignoring such instructions of the State Government, the reserve jama of the Jalkars in question was fixed at Rs. 19,250/- instead of Rs. 11,445/-. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the reserve jama of the Jalkars, which were settled with Singhwara and Keoti Runway Fishermen's Cooperative Society was fixed 15% above the reserve jama of the previous year in compliance of the ORDER :s of this Court dated 7.5.2003, passed in CWJC No. 11696 of 2002, Annexure-3. Ignoring the circulars and the aforesaid JUDGMENT : of this Court dated 7.5.2003, Annexure-3, the reserve jama in the case of the Jalkars, which were settled with the petitioner-Fishermen's Cooperative Society was enhanced more than 15% of the previous year's reserve jama and the amount was fixed at Rs. 19,250/- instead of Rs. 11,445/-. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the settlement in question, petitioners had filed their application on 4.4.2004, but the District Fisheries Officer, who was competent to consider such request for settlement of Jalkars, for the reasons best known to him considered such request in October, 2004 and thereby, petitioner-Fishermen Society had to suffer loss. It is further submitted that such action of the District Fisheries Officer is also contrary to the direction issued by the Director, Fisheries, as contained in Annexure-17. In this connection, it is pointed out that the District Fisheries Officer was biased against the petitioner-Society and raising such allegation, the Society has also moved the Hon'ble Lokayukta and the Hon'ble Lokayukta had issued notice to all concerned as would appear from the letter no. 4090 dated 16.4.2008 referred to in the ORDER :-sheet of the Principal Secretary of the Department dated 22.4.2008 contained in Annexure-24. 4090 dated 16.4.2008 referred to in the ORDER :-sheet of the Principal Secretary of the Department dated 22.4.2008 contained in Annexure-24. In this background, it is submitted that the claim for refund and reduction of the reserve jama for the years 2004, 2005, 2006 in the light of the different circulars and the JUDGMENT : of this Court dated 7.5.2003, Annexure-3 should be considered by the Director, Fisheries, Respondent No. 4. 4. Counsel for the State however, has opposed the aforesaid submissions. He states, with reference to the averments made in paragraph 4(f) of the counter affidavit that delay in settlement of the Jalkars with the petitioners was on account of late deposit of the reserve jama amount and documents by the petitioners as also because the matter remained pending before the Divisional Commissioner, who passed ORDER :, bearing Memo No. 8 dated 8.9.2004, Annexure-12. As regards the fixation of the reserve jama amount at more than 15% of the previous year's jama, learned counsel for the State submitted that there are two types of Jalkars one Fishery Jalkars and other Makhana Fishery Jalkars and Makhana Fishery Jalkars are revenue Jalkars and their reserve jama is not fixed 15% above the previous year's reserve jama, but 10% of the last year's income amount of the Society. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, in rejoinder pointed out that tile Jalkars in question for which this writ application has been filed are Fishery Jalkars and are covered by the circulars and instructions of the Fishery Directorate 'and the directions of this Court contained in ORDER :dated 7.5.2003, Annexure-3 and reserve jama of the Jalkars in question could not have been fixed more than 15% above the previous year's reserve jama. 6. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having appreciated the fact that petitioners have filed representation against the conduct of the District Fisheries Officer, Darbhanga before the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Bihar, I deem it expedient to direct the petitioners to file application for the relief prayed for in this writ application i.e. for reducing the reserve jama for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 as also for refund of the amount on account of delay in settlement of the jalkars with the petitioner-Society before the Director, Fisheries, Bihar, Respondent No. 4 alongwith a certified copy of this ORDER :, who should consider the same in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.