Jharkhand High Court
Rahe Matsya Jivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 9 July, 2014
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2215 of 2014
Rahe Matsya Jivi Sahyog Samitee Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
For Intervenor : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Sr. Adv & Sumeet Gadodia, Adv.
-----
I.A. Nos.3264, 3269 and 3266 of 2014
07/ 09.07.2014. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the applicants appear to be necessary parties in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, let all these applicants be impleaded as respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the instant case.
Accordingly, All these interlocutory applications stand allowed. W.P.(C) No. 2215 of 2014 The petitioner registered under Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, has been claiming preferential right in the matter of settlement of "Jalkar".
That right is being claimed by virtue of one of the clauses of the Act, which does speak about the preferential right.
In course of time, another Act, namely, Bihar Self Supporting Co- operative Societies Act, 1996 came into force, which covers the same field with a difference that the government has no role to play in the matter falling within the parameter of the Act, though the government does have its say in the matter related to 1935 Act.
Before filing of this case, same issue fell for consideration as to whether Societies registered under 1935 Act, will have preferential right over the Societies registered under 1996 Act.
The matter was decided by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.5405 of 2008 and 1738 of 2010 whereby, it was held that the society registered under 1935, Act will not have preferential right, which right is being claimed under a letter dated 25.04.2000.
When the matter came before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.343 of 2010 with L.P.A. No.344of 2010, it was held that any discriminatory treatment in view of the letter dated 25.04.2000 would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Observation made by Their Lordship in para-4 is as follows:-
"Para:4. 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). Consequently, there is no no merit in L.P.A. No.343 of 2010, hence L.P.A. No.343 of 2010 is dismissed."
During pendency of that L.P.As, the State Government also came forward with a letter dated 29.06.2011 by which that part of the letter dated 25.04.2000, giving right of preference to the Societies registered under 1935 Act, was deleted.
Their Lordship while disposing of the LPAs also took notice of that letter and did record that the conclusion arrived at get vindicated.
Since the preferential right given earlier had been done away with under letter dated 29.06.2011, the writ petition has been filed, challenging the said letter as contained in Memo No.1410 (Annexure-3) to be bad on the ground that it is not in consonance with the provision of 1935, Act.
Contention made on behalf of the petitioner was supported by the intervenor by taking a plea that field covered under 1935 Act is different than the field covered under 1996 Act and, thereby question of discrimination in the treatment of two different Societies registered under the different Act, does not arise and, therefore, the State Government is not justified in issuing letter dated 26.09.2011.
The said issue was also the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and also in intracourt appeals and, therefore, I am bound by the decision rendered in the appeals, whereby, it has been held that the letter dated 25.04.2000 is discriminatory in nature and as such, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State Government also realizing this, came up with the letter dated 29.06.2011, which is under challenge, but I do not find in the facts and circumstances stated above, to be bad.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit and hence, this application stands dismissed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/