- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 5405 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 1738 of 2010 have been decided by common judgment dated 06.08.2010 by the learned Single Judge against which writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1738 of 2010 and some party who was respondent in W.P.(C) No. 5405 of 2008 has preferred these two L.P.As.
(2.) The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5405 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner Sukurhutu Matsyajevi Swablambhi Sahyog Samitee Limited. This society has been addressed in the impugned judgment as '1996 Act Society'. The petitioner i.e., 1996 Act Society, has challenged the departmental letter dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure-2 to L.P.A. No. 344 of 2010) providing preferential entitlement to the societies registered under the Act of 1935 against the societies which have been registered under the Act of 1996. The learned Single Judge found that the preferential right is not the right to exclude totally other societies. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner Kanke Prakhand Matsyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Limited had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2375 of 2008 wherein the said 1935 Act Society raised grievance that out of 17 ponds for which the 1935 Act Society applied, three ponds have been settled with the 1996 Act Society whereas the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has recommended to settle the ponds in favour of the 1935 Act Society. Such Society had relied upon the same letter dated 24.04.2008 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereby the Registrar informed the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi that the ponds could not be settled with the 1996 Act Society. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the 1935 Act Society to make representation before the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand and the said Secretary was directed to pass appropriate order after considering the representation and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the light of the above directions, the 1935 Act Society submitted representation which was allowed and three ponds were settled in favour of the 1935 Act Society on the ground of preferential right in view of the Government circular dated 25.04.2000 therefore, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4505 of 2008.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in L.P.A. preferred by the 1935 Act Society i.e. Kanke Prakhand Matsyajeevi Sahyog Samiti Limited (L.P.A. No. 343 of 2010), we are of the considered opinion that circular dated 25.04.2000, if is read otherwise so as to exclude the societies registered under the Act of 1996 from giving any bid for settlement of the ponds, may result into discriminatory treatment to the societies only on the basis of their registration and will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If any preferential treatment is given on the basis of some reasonable basis, that can be justified but it appears that the said circular, as interpreted to us, is excluding the societies registered under the Act of 1996 and giving a right to the only societies registered under the Act of 1935. Such interpretation cannot be justified and, therefore, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law in allowing the writ petition of the petitioner Sukurhutu Matsyajevi Swablambhi Sahyog Samitee Limited (W.P.(C) No. 5405 of 2008). Consequentially, there is no merit in L.P.A. No. 343 of 2010, hence L.P.A. No. 343 of 2010 is dismissed.;