Government retains the power to make fishery settlements under Rule 12, even if previous directives from the Board of Revenue exist, until formal new settlements are finalized.

1. These rules arise out of the following circumstances and relate to the settlement of No. 1 Upper Part of Brahamaputra No. 1A Brahmaputra Chapari and No. 2 Middle part of Brahamaputra Fishery for three years 1966-69.

2. The petitioner in Rule No. 395 offered Rs. 20,125.00 per year on tenders being called. Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society which is arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in Rule No. 395 also made an offer. The Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated the 2nd February, 1966 settled the fisheries with Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society. Against this order of settlement the petitioner society preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated the 16th August 1966 allowed the appeal of the petitioner society and set aside the settlement made with the respondent No. 2 Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society in R.395 but sent back the whole matter to the Deputy Commissioner for resettlement. As against this decision of the Board an application has been filed by Shri Barada Kanta Bishya on behalf of the Gauhati Machdhara and Becha Kina Fishery Co - operative Society Ltd., which has given rise to rule No. 395. The prayer of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue after setting aside the settlement made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner should have settled the fishery with the petitioner.

3. Rule No. 369 arises out of a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution filed by Bangshidhar Das, Secretary, Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society Ltd. The settlement with this society was set aside by the Assam Board of Revenue by the order which is the subject matter of rule No. 395. The Board of Revenue has also directed the Deputy Commissioner to make arrangement with the fisheries for an interim period. The Additional Deputy Commissioner after the order of remand by the Board of Revenue settled the fisheries with Shri Barada Kanta Bishya for one month from 1st September 1966 to the 30th September 1966. The Additional Deputy Commissioner further invited fresh tenders and fixed the 1st October 1966 as the date of settlement. In the petition filed in the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution on behalf of Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society which gave rise to rule No. 369 of 1966, the petitioner moved this court for stay and this court directed that the further settlement be stayed. Thereafter it is alleged by the petitioner that by a telegram dated the 27th September 1966 from the Government the Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati was directed to settle the fishery with Bangshidhar Das, Secretary, Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society. The petitioner then moved this court under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Government directing settlement with Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society and this application has given rise to Rule No. 403.

4. By an application under Art.226 of the Constitution the order passed by the Government for settlement has been challenged and this has given rise to rule No. 405 of 1966.

5. The main point raised in the two Civil Rules Nos. 395 and 369 is that the order of the Assam Board of Revenue by which the settlement granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society was set aside and the case was sent back to the Deputy Commissioner for resettlement is erroneous. As the Government has purported to settle the fishery directly under R. 12 of the Fishery Rules with Rajaduar Fishery Co - operative Society, unless that order is set aside, the rules Nos. 395 and 369 have become infructuous. The validity of the order of the Government dated the