PRAKHAND BARIARPUR MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. BARIARPUR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

of the Jalkars. It is contended that it is at the instance of the newly elected Secretary, the impugned order has been passed. This Court cannot understand as to Secretary administrative order without registering an appeal or without adopting any procedure under the law pass an order cancelling the settlement and that too without giving the petitioner society an opportunity to be heard. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an Act which is ab initio illegal is void and no show cause is required in order to support the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgment of State of Bihar Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh reported in 2009(2) PLJR 472. The judgment of this Court refers to an illegal appointment. The facts indicates that the appointees were given a show cause for cancellation of their appointments and in that context they had taken a defence that they had worked for a long 6 period of time as teachers and had an unblemished career appointments ought not to be cancelled. In this context the Court has held that “a thing done in violation of law is illegal. Anything illegal is void. A thing void is void from the beginning and accordingly is void ab initio.” In the facts of this case the principles enunciated in the case of State of Bihar would not be applicable as in this case neither was a notice given to the petitioner giving them opportunity to demonstrate before the authority concerned that the settlement made in their favour was in accordance with law nor has the Secretary of the Department issued notice before cancelling settlement. The petitioners, therefore, had no opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the order was passed. Although a stand has been taken by the Counsel for the State of Bihar that subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the District Fisheries Officer for taking action for passing an order which according to the Secretary is illegal. The fact of the matter is that the 7 order impugned if it was passed on the basis of an application made by the respondents ought to have been made after instituting an appeal and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the appeal. Perhaps this was not done by the Secretary as the appeal would have been time barred under the Provisions of the Act as the grievance has been raised after a period of three years. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be justified as the process of natural justice has not been complied with and as such the order dated

22.9.2008 quashed. The Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary and Fishery Department, Patna may issue notice to the respondents and petitioners society both by ordinary process and under registered cover, call for the records and after examining the records and hearing the parties including the District Fisheries Officer pass an appropriate order that he thinks fit and proper. If such an action is contemplated by the Secretary he may take notice of the fact that out of the total period of settlement, 3 8 years have expired so it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. This writ application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)