The West Bengal Government Estates Manual is not a statutory rule and therefore orders made or steps taken thereunder are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. THIS appeal is directed against an order dated May 30. 1973 made in Civil Order No. 839 (W) of 1973 by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. By the said order his Lordship dismissed an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India without issuing a rule. The appellants, a Fishermens' co-operative Society contended that about 23 years ago the predecessors of the present members of the Society had settled on the Khasmahal lands situated within Mouza Falta village Falta 24 pargans with the object of catching fish from the chanels, tanks, bills and other watery areas of the said mouza for their maintenance and livelihood. It has further been contended that the said persons have improved the area by cutting and clearing the jungles and they were and are fishermen by caste and profession.

2. THE Co-operative Society, it has been alleged, was formed as for back as 1950 at the initiative of the state government and the same is also a registered one. In the petition used as grounds of the motion it has further been contended that the Co-operative Society and its members were given assurances to settle the jheel for their economic re-habilitation and in fact the families of the members of the Society in question who were considered to be refugees were granted house building loans for construction of their houses. In the petition, the petitioners have also given some particulars about the accommodations they have received from the directorate of Fisheries and it has further been averred that their families were rehabilitated in the lands of all Falta Fort and the jheel which encircles the colony and the same was leased out to the Society for five years at an annual economic rent of rs. 301/- in 1950 and since then the society is in possession of the same. It has further been alleged that at all material times, the petitioner Society was in possession of the jheel in question on payment of rent or charges and the last of such settlement i. e. for the year 1377 B. S. was made pursuant to a tender notice dated February 24, 1970 for a sum of Rs. 502/ -. It appears that thereafter on March 16, 1973 a notice was issued for holding an open auction of the jheel in question and pursuant to the said notice the petitioner Society along with Respondent No. 8 filed their tenders. As the tender of the said respondent No. 8 was highest, his bid was referred to that of the petitioner society. Against such order, the petitioner-Society moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed in the manner stated hereinbefore. It appears that in the petition it has been contended that there was a promise given to the petitioner Society by the Government and because of such promise the jheel in question should have been settled with them. Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee while dismissing the application held that no prima facie case was made out for the issue of a Rule and in support of the contentions made hereinbefore, there is no averment in the petition to the effect that on the basis of the promise as mentioned hereinbefore the petitioner-society has acted or taken steps to the detriment of their interest. His Lordship further found that the settlement of the nature which Wits involved in the proceedings was made under the provisions of the West Bengal government Estates Manual which has no statutory force and therefore no writ was available to the petitioner. The said manual is nothing but a reproduction of departmental instructions for the guidance of the Officers of the government. Apparently His Lordship made such determination on the basis of the case of Bidyadhari Spill Matsyajibi samabaya Samity Ltd. v. State of West bengal, reported in 65 C. W. N. 685 a. I. R. (1961) Calcutta 214. The view expressed in the said case, it may be mentioned incidentally, has also been subsequently accepted in the case of lalgola Padma Fisherman's Co-operative society v. State of West Bengal, a decision of D. Pal J. repor