Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.(Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the contesting private respondent.
2. Present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge date 12.01.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No.
16615 of 2009 (Jhanjharpur Anchal Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.).
3. We have perused the records.
4. The only question that arose in this appeal is that whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing the State to make proportionate refund
of the settlement amount for settlement of Jalkar, the settlement of which had been delayed because of administrative lapse. The facts are not in
dispute. The writ petitioner society had opted for Jalkar settlement for the year 2008- 09 by the time the settlement order was issued and parwana
issued for exploiting the Jalkar only about 49 days were left. However, society was directed to deposit full amount for the entire year. They thus
claim proportionate refund for not having been able to exploit the Jalkar for the entire year. The Director Fisheries, for reasons not known
necessitated that as the settlement was for the entire year the payment has to be made irrespective of the period.
5. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings State has taken the same stand, rather it has gone one step forward. It has submitted in the
counter affidavit that the petitioners having taken the settlement of the Jalkar and now cannot claim refund of the said amount. We are not
impressed. The factum that the settlement was delayed not because of the writ petitioners but because of the administrative lapse is not in dispute.
If that be so, then justice, equity and good conscience all demand the State to act fairly. Accordingly, the order of proportionate refund cannot by
any stretch of imagination be said to be either wrong, unfair or arbitrary and unwarranted in any manner.
6. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
