Judgment:
Aftab Alam, J.
1. This case is to be seen as a sequel to a previous round of litigation in which one of the two contesting parties was one Ram Kumar Mukhiya, the husband of Smt. Ram Sundari Devi who, in her capacity as Chairperson, represents the petitioner Co-operative Society in this case. The previous litigation had an acrimonious, protracted and chequered course and that matter came to this Court more than once. It last came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4890 of 2002 filed by Ram Kumar Mukhiya that writ petition was dismissed by me by order dated, 15-11-2002 by which the dispute was decided against Ram Kumar Mukhiya and in favour of respondents 14 and 15. The order passed in the writ petition was affirmed in LPA No. 1217 of 2002 and the S.L.P. filed by Ram Kumar Mukhiya against the orders passed by the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
2. The previous round of litigation had arisen from Ram Kumar Mukhiya's endeavours to subvert the very formation and coming into being of another Co-operative Society (respondent No. 15) that would admittedly have a preferential claim in the matter for settlement of Government jalkars in the Block, That attempt failed. The formation of the other Co-operative Society (respondent No. 15) and its registration was upheld by an order passed by the Secretary, Department of Co-operative which was affirmed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4890 of 2002.
3. The present round of litigation is a direct fall out of the decision in the previous dispute and in this case the attempt of the petitioner society is to hold on to the fruits that it was able to collect on the basis of certain orders passed in the earlier round of litigation that were later held by the superior authorities and by this Court to be bad and illegal.
4. In order to see the present dispute in its proper perspective it will be useful to begin from the begining and to take a look at the genesis of the dispute. A Cooperative Society under the name of Kusheshwarasthan Fishermens' Co-operative Society was registered in the year 1963 under the provisions of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Its area of operation was the whole of the undivided Kusheshwarasthan block in the district of Darbhanga. In order to avoid any confusion resulting from the similarity in the names of the Co-operative Societies this Society shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the Society under the 1935 Act'. In 1994 Kusheshwarasthan block was divided into two blocks, namely, Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand and Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand. On 17-1-1997 the Bihar Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 came into force. On coming into force of the 1996 Act, Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand Matasyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samity Limited ('the petitioner society') was registered under its provisions in the year 1998, Around the same time the Society under the 1935 Act got itself converted into a Self Supporting Society under the name of Kusheshwarasthan Matasyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samity Limited in terms of Section 5 (1) (v) of the 1996 Act (hereinafter 'Converted Society'). The converted society like its predecessor, the Society under the 1935 Act, had its area of operation over both the blocks that had resulted from the division of the erstwhile Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand. Following its conversion into a self supporting society 'the converted society' in its meeting held on 25-12-1998 passed resolution No. 14 taking the decision for its division into two societies, one with the area of operation over Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand and the other having its area of operation over Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand. The A.R.C.S. Benipur Anchal, Benipur was moved for issuance of registration certificates for the two new Societies. The A.R.C.S. gave approval to the division of 'the Converted Society' under Section 11(1) of the 1996 Act and on 19-8-1999 issued registration certificates to the two newly formed societies namely, (i) Kusheshwarasthan Purvi Prakhand Matasyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samity Limited, Kewatgama (hereinafter referred to as 'the K. P. P. Society') and (ii) Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand Mastsyajivi Swavlambi Sahkari Samity Limited, Satighat (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.P. Society'). It is to be noted that the K.P: Society had its area of operation exclusively confined to Kusheshwarasthan Prakhand and thus it became a rival of the Society under the 1996 Act, the petitioner in this case.
5. At this stage, with a view to abort the formation of its rival the K,P. Society Ram Kumar Mukhiya filed a petition before the A.R.C.S., alleging that the division of the converted society and the subsequent registration of the two societies was brought out by wrongful and fraudulent means. On the basis of the complaint of Ram Kumar Mukhiya, the A.R.C.S., Passed an order dated 4-11-1999 rejecting the division of the converted society and cancelling the registration of the two societies that came into being as a result of the division, The order passed by the A.R.C.S. on 4-11-1999 generated much heat and controversy and gave rise to the previous round of litigation which was concluded only by the order dated 15-11-2002 passed by this Court in C.W. J.C. No. 4890 of 2002, later affirmed in the L.P.A. and by the Supreme Court.
6. Against the order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the A.R.C.S. an appeal was preferred before the District Co-operative Officer and the matter ran through the entire hierarchy of the Government Department in course of which some conflicting orders were also passed at different levels. Finally, the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar by his Memo No. 2213 dated 30-7-2001 found and held that the order passed by the A.R.C.S. on 4-11-1999 was void ab initio. In that memo he further directed the District Co-operative Officer to make settlement of the jalkars in favour of the two societies, namely, the K.P.P. Society and the K.P. Society and not in favour of the petitioner society. Ram Kumar Mukhiya then filed C.W.J.C. No. 13411 of 2001 challenging the order of the Secretary dated 30-7-2001 in which the operation of the Secretary's order was stayed. In that writ petition the order of the Secretary was assailed primarily on the ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and without giving the other side an opportunity of hearing. At that time three other writ petitions between the same parties were also pending before this Court relating to the dispute with regard to the settlement of jalkars in that confused State of affairs. All those four writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 13-2-2002. In that decision the Court upheld Ram Kumar Mukhiya's challenge to the order of the Secretary dated 30-7-2001 on the grounds that it was passed ex parte and without giving him an opportunity of hearing. That order was accordingly set aside and the matter was remitted to the Secretary, Department of Co-operative for passing a fresh order after giving all concerned due opportunity of hearing. In that decision Paltan Mukhiya the chair-person of K.P. Society also came under severe criticism for trying to maintain two parallel proceedings and for approaching the Secretary even while the writ petition filed by him was pending before this Court.
7. C.W.J.C. No. 13411 of 2001 was allowed by this Court by order, dated 13-6-2002. This Court set aside the order passed by the Secretary. Department of Cooperative on 30-7-2001 holding that the order of the A.R.C.S. dated 4-11 -1999 was void ab initio. As a result the order of the A.R.C.S. dated 4-11-1999 by which the registration of K.P.P. Society and K.P. Society (respondent No. 15) was withdrawn once again become operative. In other words, the K.P. Spciety (respondent No. 15) was not allowed to come into being and the petitioner society thus remained the only society, registered under the 1996 Act, having its area of operation exclusively over Kusheshwar Asthan Prakhand. Being the only Society for the block, registered under the 1996 Act the petitioner thus become the only Society eligible for settlement of Government jalkars in terms of circular No. 1180 dated 5-7-2000 issued by the State Government on 13-2-2002 this Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 13411 of2001 in favour of Ram Kumar Mukhiya and two days later on 16-2-2002 the petitioner society was able to get settlement of two jalkars in its favour for the period 1 -4-2001 to 31-3-2004. Six weeks later by letter No. 206, dated 5-3-2002 (Annexure-2) the petitioner society got settlement of 62 jalkars for the period 1 -4-2002 to 31-3-2005 and it is the settlement of these 62 jalkars which forms the subject matter of dispute in the present round of litigation.
8. On 5-3-2002 when the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner society the K.P. Society (respondent No. 15) had been prevented from coming into being by virtue of the order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the A.R.C.S. but the validity of that order and the formation of the K.P. Society was under consideration before the Secretary, Department of Co-operative on remand by this Court. Following the direction given by this Court the Secretary issued notices to all concerned and heard them at length. He then passed a long and detailed order on 21-3-2002 the operative portion of which reads as follows:
'The order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the A.R.C.S. Benipur and communicated vide his memo No. 132 is, therefore, declared as ab initio void and all the concerned are directed to ignore this order. It is also clarified that as per the provisions of the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996, both the Co-operative Society K.P.P.M.S.S.S.L., Kewatgama and K.P.M.S.S.S.L., Satighat continued to exist as self supporting Co-operative society'.
9. In his order the Secretary, Department of Co-operative expressed himself very strongly against Ram Kumar Mukhiya, the A.R.C.S. and some other local functionaries of the Co-operative Department. He seemed to hold the view that the order dated 4-11-1999 was a fraudulent and collusive order and it was intended to unduly help Ram Kumar Mukhiya. In that order the Secretary castigated the A. R.C.S, and some other local functionaries of the department for acting contrary to the departmental rules and for persistently flouting the orders passed and the direction issued by the superior authorities. He went so far as to give direction for taking suitable departmental actions against them.
10. It is noted above that the order dated 21-3-2002 passed by the Secretary, Department of Co-operative was challenged by Ram Kumar Mukhiya in C.W.J.C. No. 4890 of 2002 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 15-11-2002. The judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4890 of 2002 was upheld in L.P.A. and later on, in the S.L.P. It is, therefore, no longer in controversy that the K.P. Society was duly formed and it had came into existence when its registration certificate was issued on 19-8-1999.
11. As soon as the controversy with regard to the formation and. registration of K. P. Society (respondnet No. 15) was settled the pressent dispute arose with regard to the settlement of the 62 jalkars in favour of the petitioner society for the period 1-4-2002 to 31-3-3005. The matter was finally heard by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary and Fisheries and the fact that the same officer holding the post of Secretary, Department of Co-operative was also Incharge as Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary & Fisheries did not make the matter easier for the petitioner society. By order dated 12-3-2003/25-3-2003 he allowed the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society to remain susbsisting only till the end of that financial year i.e. 31-3-2003 and directed that for the next two years, the remaining part of the period of settlement, the settlement of the 62 jalkars be made in favour of K.P. Society (respondent No. 15).
12. This writ petition is filed challenging this order.
13. Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah assailed this order on several grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that the order suffered from patent illegalities and it was also vitiated by bias harboured by the officer against the petitioner society. I am not impressed by the submissions made by Mr. Amanullah. In my opinion the simple and incontrovertable fact is that the K. P. Society was formed and it had come into existence on 19-8-1999 when the certificate of registration was issued in its favour. On 5-3-2000 when the disputed settlements were made in favour of the petitioner society it had undoubtedly a preferential claim for the settlement of the Jalkars in terms of circular No. 1180, dated 5-7-2000. Nevertheless, it was kept out of consideration and the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner society wholly on account of the order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the A.R.C.S. purpotedly, withdrawing the registration of the Society. The order dated 4-11-1999 was later found to be not only illegal and invalid but apparently fraudulent and collusive. In other words, the preferential claim of the respondent Society for the settlement of the jalkars was defeated on the basis of an order that was illegal and invalid and that was also found by the Departmental Secretary as collusive and fraudulent. It is an axiom that no party would suffer by any act or order passed by a Court or authority. I see no reason why this axiom should not apply here in the case of the respondent society and why the issue of settlement of jalkars be not considered afresh to undo the mischief brought about by the illegal order passed by the A.R.C.S, Seen from this angle the Secretary, Animal Husbandary seems to have passed an equitable and reasonable order. He did not annul the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society retrospectively and did not hold it liable to pay any damages etc. for obtaining the settlement by deceit and collusion. The Secretary allowed the settlement to continue till the end of the financial year and after that he directed the settlement to be made in favour of the respondent society for the remaining period of two years.
14. For this reason alone I am not inclined to interfere in this matter.
15. Mr. Amanullah submitted that the respondent Society was in default in payment of the Government revenue and was, therefore, disqualified to take Government jalkars on settlement. In support of his claim that the K. P. Society was in default, he referred to some departmental correspondences and some other materials. Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan appearing for the respondent Society strongly denied the allegation and invited my attention to some certificates/departmental letters to show that the respondent Society was not a defaulter. Mr. AAGI appearing for the State submitted that in the impugned order the Secretary, Department of Fisheries has found, on a consideration of all relevant materials, that the respondent Society was not a defaulter. This controversy, thus stands concluded by a finding of fact and in this writ proceeding I see no reason to allow the petitioner to re-open the controversy based on disputed facts.
16. Mr. Amanullah also assailed the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary & Fisheries on the ground of bias and fairness demands that his submissions in this regard too may be noted. Mr. Amanullah submitted that in the impugned order the Secretary had given as many as seven reasons for cancelling the settlement of the jalkars made in favour of the petitioner society. Learned Counsel submitted that most of the reasons assigned by the Secretary were not at all germane to the issue and those only betrayed his bias against the petitioner society. He further pointed out that in passing the order as Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary & Fisheries the officer relied upon informations that he had gathered only as Secretary, Department of Co-operative.
17. Mr. Amanullah also referred to certain earlier orders passed by the Secretary in the matter of settlement of the disputed jalkars. Learned Counsel stated that shortly after the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner Society by the competent authority at the local level, the Secretary by an ex parts order stayed the order of settlement and prohibited the petitioner Society from taking control over the jalkars. The petitioner challenged that order by filing a writ petition before this Court. The Secretary, then remanded the matter of settlement to the District Fisheries Officer with the direction that the prohibition against the petitioner Society will remain operative till a period of one week from the date of the order passed by the District Fisheries Officer. This rendered the writ petition filed by the petitioner Society infructuous. The District Fisheries Officer once against decided the matter of settlement in favour of the petitioner Society and the respondent Society filed an appeal against that order in which the Secretary passed the impugned order.
18. Mr. Amanullah submitted that the manner in which the officer dealt with this matter plainly showed that he was completely biased against the petitioner society and the impugned order was thus vitiated by bias.
19. To justify the different orders passed by the Officer it may be said that he was taking a holistic view of the matter of formation of the K.P. Society and the connected matter of settlement of jalkars. It is noted above that the officer was holding the post of the Secretary, Department of Co-operative and was also acting as Secretary, Department of Fisheries. He was thus in a position to take an overall view of this fight going on between two Co-operative Societies for the settlement of the jalkars. It appears that he was highly annoyed and angry with the manner in which the petitioner society had been acting in this matter in collusion with the local functionaries and it appears that he gave vent to his anger and annoyance in some of the orders passed by him.
20. Having regard to the manner in which this proceeding went on for more than three years, there is some justification for the officer to express his anger and annoyance but this Court should have appreciated it much better had he exercised restraint over his anger and annoyance in the matter. Restraint of action and in words is the hallmark of all judicial proceedings and it would have been greatly appreciated if the officer had remembered this.
21. In any event I am unable to agree with Mr. Amanullah that the orders passed by him show his bias against the petitioner Society and that renders the impugned order as had and unsustainable.
22. I have given above my reasons for not interfering in this matter and that I feel is sufficient to dismiss this writ petition even though I may not agree with all the reasons assigned by the Secretary in his impugned order for cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society.
For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.