Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 470 (PAT)

Ajay Mahaldar v. State of Bihar

2024-05-08

RAJIV ROY

body2024
Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application praying for the grant of following relief(s): – (i) to hold and declare that once the beating is over and a subsequent time has been passed, any cancellation of parwana (annexure no-8) is wrong since by this time the fishermen invest lots of money and puts in lot of labour too in executing such parwana for rearing the pond; (ii) to hold and declare that without waiting for the final order of the respondent no -1 the cancellation of parwana (Annexure no-8) vide order dated 21.9.22 is nothing but the violation of the direction of this Hon'ble Court which in fact has been passed vide its order dated 16.2.22 in CWJC No. 7393/21.In this Order it was stated that the respondent no -1 has to pass a reasoned order in regard to the application of one complainant namely Sachdanand Mandal. The cancellation of the parwana of the petitioner has been done without waiting for the order of the aforesaid Deputy Director; (iii) to hold and declare that winning a beat is the final measure of seeking a parwana and it should be the responsibility of the beat conducting perfectly authority authority and once should to perform the beat it stand is performed the by the beating conducted by them and support the winner of the beating in all respect; (iv) to hold and declare that the cancellation of the parwana issued on 1.8.20 to the petitioner was wrong, considering the fact that when the complainant had come to this Hon'ble Court, this Hon'ble Court didn't cancel/quash the parwana and directed the respondent no 1 to pass a speaking/reasoned order regarding the complaint of one of the bidder whereas the fact remains that the Hon'ble Court had enormous power to quash the parwana issued to the petitioner. So refusing to quash the parwana may be construed reluctance of this cancellation of Parwana Hon'ble Court as in to the petitioner which has been won by him in fare bidding and he afterwards being indulged in investing a lot of money and labour in the pond there upon; (v) to hold and declare that cancellation of parwana of the petitioner without waiting of the order of the respondent no -1 is sheer violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court hence the petitioner may kindly be allowed to work on the parwana issued to him without any further hindrance with immediate effect with an extension of another five years to cope up the losses incurred by him; (vi) to hold and declare that for the kind of wrong act the respondent Principal and the Chairman of the committee should be held guilty and be directed to pay damage to the petitioner so as to create a deterrent effect to all those who after losing the beat try to disturb the winner in some way or the other. 3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present writ application is/are follows: – 4. There is School called Rajyakrit Laxminarayan Intermediate School (henceforth for short ‘the School’) and within there is a pond inside the campus called ‘Jichho Pokhar’. Since the school is under the administrative control of the Department of Education, the School administration along with the Education Department offers lease hold right of the pond for certain years for rearing of the fishes by the local fishermen. 5. Further, as and when the period of aforesaid right expires, the school administration again offers fresh rights to the fishermen. The offer to buy such rights is given by the process of open beating (in local language called ‘Daak’). It is done by the School administration and by the orders of the Principal of ‘the School’ as also the Regional Deputy Director, Education. 6. The respondent no. 5, Sachidanand Mandal tried to compete in the beating but as he failed in it, mischievously, he started disturbing the petitioner. In continuation, he filed an application before the Regional Deputy Director, Education complaining illegality in the beating. 7. The Regional Deputy Director, Education after going through the application of the complainant prohibited the petitioner from rearing the fish in the pond vide his office letter ref. no -925 dated 15.9.2020. 8. In continuation, he filed an application before the Regional Deputy Director, Education complaining illegality in the beating. 7. The Regional Deputy Director, Education after going through the application of the complainant prohibited the petitioner from rearing the fish in the pond vide his office letter ref. no -925 dated 15.9.2020. 8. Later, on the basis of the report given in his favour by the Circle Officer, Pirpainti vide his letter dated 28.11.2020, the Regional Deputy Director vacated the stay. 9. On 5.7.2021, surprisingly, the SHO of the Pirpaiti Police Station orally instructed the petitioner to stop the operation of the pond without elaborating any further on whose instruction he gave the direction. 10. In the meantime, the complainant Sachidanand Mandal moved before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7393 of 2021 for quashing of the ‘parwana’ issued to the petitioner. A Division Bench of the Court after hearing the matter vide an order dated 16.02.2022 directed the Regional Deputy Director, Education to pass a reasoned order on the complaint of the Sachidanand Mandal within four weeks from the date of the order. 11. However, the Chairman, Prabandhak Committee and the Principal of the School preempted and without waiting for the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, in a haste, cancelled the ‘parwana’ issued to the petitioner vide an order dated 02.04.2022. Aggrieved, the said writ petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the admitted fact is that it was settled on 01.08.2020 for Rs. 6,85,500/- and prior to that, pursuant to the decision taken on 25.07.2020, Rs. 2,85,500/- amount was deposited as the first installment and the rest of the same denomination was/were to be deposited in two settlements by 31st of March, 2023 and 31st March, 2025 as would reflect from the order dated 01.08.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the In-charge Principal of the concerned school. 13. He further submits that pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent no. 5 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur though it was stayed earlier, on the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Pirpaity, the said official vide letter no. 1760 dated 19.12.2023 withdrew the said stay (Annexure-5 to the petition). 14. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 7393 of 2021 was preferred by the respondent no. 5 before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur though it was stayed earlier, on the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Pirpaity, the said official vide letter no. 1760 dated 19.12.2023 withdrew the said stay (Annexure-5 to the petition). 14. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 7393 of 2021 was preferred by the respondent no. 5, which was disposed of on 16.02.2022 directing the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner by a reasoned order (Annexure-7 to the petition. 15. His submission is that even before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur took a call, the Principal rushed in on 02.04.2022 and cancelled the settlement (Annexure-8 to the petition). 16. He as such, submits that the concerned Principal exceeded his jurisdiction and the same has to be interfered with. 17. Respondent no.5, Sachidanand Mandal has filed a counter affidavit and brought on record the reasoned order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur vide memo no. 1313 dated 29.07.2022 by which taking into account the allegation to be true, the settlement made in favour of the petitioner dated 25.07.2020 was found to be in the teeth of departmental rules and as such, the same was cancelled with further direction to get the settlement afresh (Annexure-E to the counter affidavit). 18. Mr. Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that in view of the fact that a decision has already been taken by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, no case is made out and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 19. Having gone through the facts of the case and the materials on record, the admitted facts is/are that: – (i) a settlement of the pond took place on 25.07.2020 for Rs. 6, 85,500/; (ii) the first installment of Rs. 2,85,500/- was deposited by the petitioner; (iii) upon complaint of respondent no. 5, it was stayed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur; (iv) subsequently, the Circle Officer submitted its report and finding the same to be in favour of the petitioner, the stay was vacated on 18.12.2020. 20. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 7393 of 2021 was preferred by the respondent no. 5. 5, it was stayed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur; (iv) subsequently, the Circle Officer submitted its report and finding the same to be in favour of the petitioner, the stay was vacated on 18.12.2020. 20. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 7393 of 2021 was preferred by the respondent no. 5. The matter was taken up by a Division Bench and disposed of on 16.02.2022 directing the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur to take the complaint to its logical conclusion. 21. The direction was given to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur but the Principal concerned himself came into picture and on 02.04.2002, unilaterally cancelled the settlement. Though subsequently, the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur passed an order on 29.07.2022, the fact remains that the Principal exceeded his jurisdiction and he had absolutely no business to pass the order. 22. However, as the petitioner failed to implead the Principal as the party-respondent by name so that notices could be issued to him and is further made answerable to the action/decision he took, the Court refrains from proceeding further. 23. Further, we are in the year, 2024 and lots of water has flown down the ganges since then. Now that the settlement period is over, quashing of the order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur will have no meaning. 24. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that Rs. 2,85,500/- was deposited by the petitioner on 25.07.2022 and subsequently, he made investments for the rearing of the fishes. It got stayed on 24.08.2022 i.e a month later, vacated on 18.12.2020 and finally cancelled by the Principal on 02.04.2022. As such, he having been disturbed continuously, is entitled to the amount (for not having availed the fruits despite the payment of first installments) along with 18 percent interest. As the petitioner has not provided any details of the investment made in rearing of the fish, this Court is unable to determine the amount. 25. As such, he having been disturbed continuously, is entitled to the amount (for not having availed the fruits despite the payment of first installments) along with 18 percent interest. As the petitioner has not provided any details of the investment made in rearing of the fish, this Court is unable to determine the amount. 25. In that background, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur within a period of six weeks from today alongwith comprehensive representation and all the supporting documents to show his entitlement of the amount which he deposited as also the expenditure details with receipts regarding the beautification of the pond and the rearing of the fishes in the pond/any other expenditure made. 26. In case, such representation with all the necessary documents is/are preferred before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur in four weeks, he is duty bound to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months after hearing the relevant parties including the Principal of the Rajyakrit Laxmi Narayan Intermediate School, Mallickpur, Pirpaity, Bhagalpur and the respondent no. 5, Sachidanand Mandal. 27. The amount that the petitioner will be entitled to pursuant to the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur shall come with an interest of 18 percent from the date, this Court has passed the order till the actual payment is made. 28. The writ petition stands disposed of.