JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 and the State. Both the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. 2. This writ application has been filed challenging Annexures-1 and 2. Annexure-1 is the order of the Collector, Nalanda by which he has unsettled the settlement of Jalkars made by the District Fisheries Officer, Nalanda with respect to only two Jalkars which were in the category of Class-A. 3. Earlier, the petitioner Society was settled Imadpur Barki Pokhar whereas the Bajitpur Mahaipar Jalkar was settled in favour of the respondent Society for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. The respondent Society approached the Collector, Nalanda making a complaint that the Class-A Jalkar of Bajitpur Mahaipar has wrongly been settled in favour of the petitioner Society. The Collector, Nalanda directed the District Fisheries Officer to examine the matter. The matter was examined vide Annexure-2. Both the parties were represented before the District Fisheries Officer, who passed the order ex- changing the Jalkars. The order was passed on the basis of the fact that Biharsharif Town Prathmik Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited (respondent Society) had 194 members whereas Biharsharif Nagar Palika Prathmik Matsyajivi Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited (petitioner Society) had 137 members. After the order was passed, it was countersigned by both the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent Societies. Thereafter, the Collector confirmed the order and the recommendation of the District Fisheries Officer which is challenged by the petitioner Society before this Court. 4. On perusal of the entire facts aforesaid, I do not see any illegality in the order of the District Fisheries Officer. 5. Counsel for the petitioner Society submits that the Collector has no jurisdiction to pass an order relating to Jalkars after the enactment of the Bihar Fish Jalkar Settlement Act, 2006. As far as this settlement is concerned, I completely agree with the stand of the petitioner Society specially in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Hilsa Prakhand Matsyajivi Swawlambi Sahyog Samiti Limited V/s. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2007(2) BBCJ 276 [: 2007(2) PLJR 546 ]. 6. As far as this settlement is concerned, I completely agree with the stand of the petitioner Society specially in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Hilsa Prakhand Matsyajivi Swawlambi Sahyog Samiti Limited V/s. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2007(2) BBCJ 276 [: 2007(2) PLJR 546 ]. 6. However, as far as the merits of the stand of the parties are concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere as the Court finds that the reasonings given by the District Fisheries Officer for making the exchange is justified as it has been settled on the basis of the number of the members of each of the Societies. Besides which, the settlement is for the period 2006-11 and the period is almost over. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. This application is accordingly dismissed.