The proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fisheries Rules, 1953 aims to provide livelihood opportunities to the fishing population in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The court emphasizes the discretion of the authority to choose the most suitable society from amongst the eligible ones and the need to consider distributive justice and discourage monopolistic pursuits.

Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1181/2002 and W.P.(C) No. 1580/2002. The writ petitioners are in appeal before us being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dismissing the writ petitions.

2. We have heard Mr N.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. B. Begum, advocate for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 267/2002, Mr. P.C. Kalita, advocate for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 366/ 2002, Mrs A. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State respondents and Mr P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs P. Barman, advocate for the private respondent-M/s. Bhitorkakila Mach Poha and Matshya Babasayee Samabai Samity Ltd., Bhitorkakila, P.O. Nimatighat.

3. The matter relates to settlement of Brahmaputra Part-II Fishery of Sibsagar District (hereinafter referred to as the Fishery) under proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fisheries Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved can be summarised thus.

4. The appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1181 of 2002 assailed the order dated 21.2.2002, Annexure-IX to the writ petition whereby, the fishery was settled with the private respondent named hereinabove contending inter alia, that it is a Fishery Co-operative Society formed with 100% actual fishermen by profession belonging to the Scheduled Caste community of Assam and registered under Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1948 with its registered office at Baghargaon, P.O. Ratanpur, Majuli in the District of Jorhat. The members of the said Society are an actual fishermen by profession and fishing provides the only source of livelihood to them and they reside by the side of the bank of the fishery. The petitioner-society fulfils all the requirements envisaged under the proviso to Rule 12 of the rules and, as such, the fishery was settled with the petitioner-society for two consecutive terms upto 31.5.96. The respondent-society was registered in the year 1960-61 as a pisciculture Society with the object of breeding of fish. It does not fulfil the requirements prescribed by the proviso to Rule 12 for settlement of the fishery thereunder. However, the concerned authorities illegally and arbitrarily settled the said fishery in favour of the respondent-society by an order dated 20.6.96 for a period of 5 years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-society assailed the said settlement order by a writ petition before this Court registered as Civil Rule No. 3205 of 1996. The settlement was set aside by this Court by judgment and order dated 6.8.96. Writ Appeal No. 462/1996 preferred by the respondent-society did not yield any different result and the Division Bench of this Court while upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department for passing fresh settlement order in respect of the fishery. The fishery was, however, again settled with the respondent-society by order dated 24.10.96 for a period of 5 years from 24.10.96 to 23.10.2001. The further case of the petitioner-society, as can be culled out from the writ petition is that before the expiry of the period of settlement in favour of the respondent-society as above, the petitioner-society submitted an application on 5.6.2001 before the appropriate authority of the Government requesting for direct settlement of the fishery in its favour. The authority concerned acting on the said application called for a report from the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar and eventually on 8.8.2001, a report was submitted to the Government which inter alia, mentioned that the petitioner-society was composed of 100% actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and the members thereof were residing on the bank of the fishery in question. The report c