- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2215 of 2014 dated 9th July, 2014, whereby, the petition preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) has been dismissed and Clause no. 5 of the circular, issued by the Government dated 29th June, 2011 (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) has been held as a valid one and both the Co operative Societies, registered under the Bihar Co operative Societies Act, 1935 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1935 ) as well as the society registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co operative Societies Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1996 ) have been treated at par with each other, so far as allocation of pond of fisheries is concerned. The appellant (original petitioner) is seeking priority because the appellant has been registered as a Co operative Society under the Act, 1935.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was some litigation between respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 in the earlier writ petitions, which were decided by the learned Single Judge. The said order is annexed at Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, both respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 had challenged the order in the Letters Patent Appeals and ultimately the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in their matters, in which, present appellant was never a party.
(3.) By virtue of some order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal and also on their own, policy decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that the Co operative Societies, which are registered under the Act, 1935 as well as under the Act, 1996 shall be treated at par with each other, so far as allocation of pond of fisheries is concerned. The circular has been issued on 29th June, 2011 (Annexure 5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and in Clause no. 5, this policy decision has been crystallized, which was under challenge by the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal.;