The court upheld the validity of R.12 of the Fishery Rules, affirming that the State Government has the discretion to directly settle fisheries.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are that No. 13 Rupna Jaljali Kholabandha Group of fisheries is a fishery declared under S.16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation . Under a notification of the State Government this fishery could be settled by a tender system. Tenders were invited for settlement of this fishery. The settlement was made by the Deputy Commissioner. Then an appeal was filed against that order to the Assam Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue set aside the settlement and directed resettlement of the fishery. This order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 6-6-66. On 10-6-66 an application was filed by the opposite party No. 4 for direct settlement of the fishery with him.
The petitioner also filed an application on 15-6-66 for direct settlement of the fishery with him. The State Government decided to settle the fishery with the opposite party no. 4 and the order was passed on 15-7-66. In the meantime, on remand the proceedings were going on before the Deputy Commissioner and he had fixed, after calling fresh tenders, 20-7-66 for direct settlement of the fishery. It is thus clear that on 15-7-66 when the settlement was made with the opposite party No. 4 there has been no settlement with anybody else. The State Government in the exercise of its powers under R.12 of the Fishery Rules settled directly the fishery with opposite party no. 4. This settlement has been challenged by this petition.

2. -3. Dr. Medhi appearing for the petitioner has covered a very wide range of arguments but, in our opinion, this case is concluded by our earlier decision in the case of Birendra Nath Barman v. Deputy Commr., Goalpara , reported in ILR (1963) 15 Assam 288. Dr. Medhi's main contention is that R.12 of the Fishery Rules contravenes Art.14 of the Constitution. He has also tried to argue that R.12 gives power to the State Government to make its choice at the earlier stage and decide whether it will settle through tender system, or directly settle the fishery. Having once made up its mind that the fishery will be settled by tender system it is not open even to the State Government to by - pass the procedure laid down under R.42 and R.48 of the Fishery Rules and the order of the Board of Revenue and make the direct settlement.
In the case, which we have referred to earlier, this Bench has definitely held that there is nothing in R.12 which confines the power of the State Government to the initial stage. R.12 lays down that the fishery will be settled ordinarily by auction sale except in the case of settlement by the Government. Thus, the normal rule of settlement by auction sale has been made subject to the State Government's right to make settlement of the Fishery directly and thus R.12 has given wide powers to the State Government to make direct settlement. The proviso to R.12 lays down that if the Government thinks proper in the circumstances of the case it can replace the method of auction sale by tender system. Thus it cannot be said on the interpretation of R.12 that the power of the State Government to make direct settlement can only be exercised at the initial stage. This point has been fully dealt with by this Bench in the case referred to above and it is not necessary for us to again reiterate our reasons given in that case.
That decision was again followed by another Bench of this Court Rule No. 39 of 1963 (Assam) Barada Kanta Bishaya v. State of Assam decided on 9-8-63. Dr. Medhi has, however, raised a point that R.12 of the Fishery Rules itself is ultra vires in so far as it makes exception in favour of the Government to make direct settlement. His a