SARJOO PROSAD, C. J.: This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which the Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appro­priate writ directing the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, including the State of Assam, the Conservator of Forests and others, to cancel or recall or other­wise forbear from giving effect to the order, dated 9-9-1957 passed by the State Government, in res­pect of settlement of Dibru River Fishery Mahal No. Ill with the Respondent No. 5, Sri Gobinda Chandra Hazarika. (2) The Petitioner claims that he is a citizen of India, permanently residing, in the State of Assam for the last twelve years, when the mem­bers of his family migrated to this State in 1945. He belongs to the Scheduled Castes community and is a fisherman by caste and profession. He also claims to have landed properties at village Khamtigoali in the district of Lakhimpur, where he is residing, and had obtained settlement of Mahal No. 1 of the Dibru Reserve Fishery for the year 1955-56 at Rs. 16,600/-, which he continued to work on payment of Government, dues. A sale notice inviting tenders for settlement of the diffe­rent Mahals in the aforesaid Fishery, including Mahal No. Ill for a period of one year, beginning from 1st July, 1957 to 30th June. 1958, was issued by the Respondent No. 1, the Divisional Forest Officer Lakhimpur Division, on the 19th of Febru­ary, 1957. The terms of this notice, as it would appear later, have naturally received much importance in this case. The petitioner in pursuance of the said notice, submitted a sealed tender, in respect of Mahal No. III of the Dibru Reserve Fishery, offering to pay Rs. 18,250/- for the lease of the Mahal. The Respondent No. 5, Govinda Chandra Hazarika, also appears to have submitted his ten­der in respect of the said Mahal, but his offer was perhaps the lowest of all, being only Rs. 10.500/- The Petitioner states that in accordance with the conditions of the sale notice, the Divi­sional Forest Officer recommended settlement of the said Fishery Mahal with the Petitioner, his tender being the highest, and he being otherwise suitable; and the officer forwarded all the tenders to the Conservator of Forests, Shillong, for con­firmation of the sale or settlement in favour of the Petitioner, since even the highest tender was below Rs. 25,000/-. 25,000/-. The Conservator of Forests, it is said, on due consideration of each tender, confirmed the set­tlement of the Fishery Mahal with the Petitioner at Rs. 18,2507-; and accordingly the Divisional Fo­rest Officer by his order, dated 3-6-1957, settled the aforesaid Mahal with the Petitioner on con­dition that he should pay the whole amount in one lump. The Petitioner was further directed by the order in question to deposit not only the entire amount of the tender, but also a security of Rs. 5067- by 18-6-1957 positively and to appear at the office of the Divisional Forest Office for signing the requisite agreement. (3) It may be stated here that although the Divisional Forest Officer made the order of set­tlement in favour of the Petitioner on the 3rd June, 1957, in pursuance of the confirmation re­ceived from the Conservator of Forests, yet there is nothing to show that the Respondent No. 5 had preferred any appeal to the Conservator of Forests against the order of confirmation. Before, how­ever, the Petitioner could, make the deposit by the 18th June, 1957, as required by the order afore­said, he received a telegram on the 13th of June, whereby he was directed not to make the deposit until further orders in view of an appeal filed against the above settlement. In the meantime, pending final orders, the Divisional Forest Officer by his order dated the 25th June, 1957, made arrangements with the Range Officer for fishing in the aforesaid Mahal by jaluas available and to keep the share of the sale-proceeds of fishes as Revenue deposits with him from 1-7-1957, till the matter was finalised on disposal of the appeal. The appeal in question was preferred by the Respondent No. 5 before the Minister of Fisheries On 13-6-1957, objecting to the settlement with the Petitioner. It was heard by the Minister in the presence of the par­ties. The Petitioner says that while he was repre­sented by an Advocate, Respondent No. 5 was re­presented by Sri Ramnath Das, an ex-Minister, and by order dated 9-9-1957 issued under the signature of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department, the appeal was allow­ed, setting aside the settlement in favour of the petitioner, as confirmed by the Conservator of Fo­rests on a premium of Rs. 18,2507-, and directing settlement with the Respondent No. 5, on a sum of Rs. 13,500/- only. 18,2507-, and directing settlement with the Respondent No. 5, on a sum of Rs. 13,500/- only. The apparent reasons for the order' appear to be that the offer of the Petitioner was evidently high and speculative, and that the Respondent No. 5 was an indigenous old con­tractor, who deserved consideration, as he had made improvements in the Fishery during its ear­lier settlement. (4) It is this order of the State Government allowing the appeal and refusing to make settle­ment with the Petitioner and directing settlement with the Respondent No. 5. that is now assailed before us on the ground that the Government had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. It is contended that fhe tender of the Petitioner hav­ing been accepted and duly confirmed by the Con­servator of Forests, the Petitioner acquired a valu­able right to the settlement of the Mahal, which could not be arbitrarily taken away by the Gov­ernment in the manner that it has been done. If Government had complete discretion in! making the settlement with "X" or "Y", this Court would be powerless to interfere with the exercise of their discretion. The statement in the petition that the appeal of the Respondent No. 5 before the Forest Minister was pressed on his be­half by an ex-Minister of Government has been obviously made with a view to suggest that some influence was sought to be exercised on the Gov­ernment. I confess that I am not much impressed with some of the reason, which appear in the Government order for the decision in question. For instance, there does not appear to be any adequate explanation for the fact that the Government were pleased to accept a tender of Rs. 13,500/- only for settlement of the Fishery Mahal with the Respondent No. 5 as against the tender of Rs. 18,500/- made by the Petitioner, when the whole amount was payable by the latter in one lump. Prima facie such a decision was to the detriment of public revenue. But be that as it may, it is not for this Court ordinarily to ques­tion the merits of the order, provided the Gov­ernment had the power to decide as they did or a complete discretion in the matter of making the settlement with anybody they liked. Prima facie such a decision was to the detriment of public revenue. But be that as it may, it is not for this Court ordinarily to ques­tion the merits of the order, provided the Gov­ernment had the power to decide as they did or a complete discretion in the matter of making the settlement with anybody they liked. (5) It is not claimed by either party that there are any specific rules regulating the settle­ment of these Fisheries, They are, however, agreed that the parties are bound by the terms and con­ditions contained in the sale notice, which really govern settlements of this character and great reliance has been placed by the parties on the conditions contained in paragraph 11 of the same in pursuance whereof the tenders were submit­ted. Paragraph 11 runs as follows: "Sales in value exceeding Rs. 5,000/- are subject to confirmation by the Conservator of Forests, Assam and sales exceeding Rs. 25,000/- are sub­ject to confirmation by the State Government. Any person wishing to represent against the sale must file an appeal in duplicate within 15 days from the date of communication of accept­ance of tender to the successful tenderer, to the appropriate authority as above through the Divi­sional Forest Officer, Lakhlmpur Division. Other­wise no appeal will be valid. If the appellant pre­fers a second appeal, he may do so within 1 days of the date of communication of the result of the first appeal through the Conservator of. Forests, Assam. No compensation will be payable for delay in settlement due to enquiries to be made to as­certain financial conditions and other legitimate enquiries. There is no obligation on the part of the Officer holding the sale, Conservator of Forests, Assam or Government of Assam to accept the highest or any tender or to assign any reason for rejecting any tender." According to the Respondents, it means that under the terms of this paragraph, an appeal lay to the State Government from the order of con­firmation passed by the Conservator of Forests. The Respondents read the paragraph as meaning that an appeal lies in the first instance to the Conservator of Forests where the settlement is made by the Divisional Forest Officer and its value does not exceed Rs. The Respondents read the paragraph as meaning that an appeal lies in the first instance to the Conservator of Forests where the settlement is made by the Divisional Forest Officer and its value does not exceed Rs. 5,000/- then there is a second appeal to the State Government against the deci­sion of the Conservator; when the settlement is made by the Conservator of Forests and its value does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-, an appeal 'would lie to the State Government and there is no second appeal available. It is, therefore, open to the appellate authority to modify the order under appeal and to refuse to accept the highest bid in snaking the settlement. The petitioner, on the contrary, contends that this reading is incorrect. According to him, an appeal lay in the first instance to the Conser­vator of Forests within 15.days from the date of communication and acceptance of tender to the successful tenderer and it is only when the Con­servator of Forests rejected the appeal that the party aggrieved could prefer a second appeal within seven days of the date of communication of the result of the appeal through the Conser­vator of Forests, Assam, to the State Govern­ment, It is submitted that since there was no appeal ever preferred to the Conservator of Forests against the 'order of settlement, an appeal to the State Government was quite incompetent and the State Government could not interfere on the basis of any such plea to set aside the order of confirmation made by the Conservator of Forests, which had become final and a valuable right had accrued to the Petitioner. It is not disputed that the tender in this case having exceeded Rs. 5,000/-, the sale held by the Divisional Forest Officer was liable to confirmation by the Conser­vator of Forests, Assam; but, if the tenders had exceeded Rs. 25.000/-, they were liable to be confirmed by the State Government. The confirmation would be of course in due course of official business. The Divisional Forest Officer, who held the sale on the strength of this condition, had to send up the relevant papers in order to obtain confirmation from the appropriate authority. 25.000/-, they were liable to be confirmed by the State Government. The confirmation would be of course in due course of official business. The Divisional Forest Officer, who held the sale on the strength of this condition, had to send up the relevant papers in order to obtain confirmation from the appropriate authority. But the second part of paragraph 11 contemplates that where the acceptance of the tender had been communicated, then an appeal would lie within 15 days from the date of communication of acceptance of the tender to the appropriate authority as above. The only appropriate autho­rities mentioned in this paragraph are the Con­servator of Forests and the State Government and the paragraph, therefore, contemplates that the party aggrieved by the settlement may also prefer an appeal to the Conservator of Forests in the first instance, where the amount of the ten­der exceeds Rs. 5,000/-, and if there is an adverse order made by the Conservator of Forests in that case he may prefer a second appeal to the State Government. In the one case, the appeal before the Con­servator of Forests is to be presented through the Divisional Forest Officer, whereas in the other case, the appeal is to be preferred through the Conservator of Forests. Where, however, the ten­der exceeds Rs. 25,000/-, the appeal would lie directly to the confirming authority, namely the State Government. In either case, the essential point to bear in mind is that the prescribed ap­propriate appellate authority contemplated by this paragraph is the confirming authority to whom an appeal is to be preferred. Such provi­sions are not uncommon. This appears to be a reasonable interpretation clearly suggested by the language of that paragraph and definite time-limits have been mentioned in the paragraph for the presentation of those appeals. (6) It has even been observed that if the regular procedure as indicated therein is not fol­lowed, the appeal shall not be valid. It is, how­ever, argued that if the above interpretation is adopted, the result would be that in so far as sales not exceeding the value of Rs 5,000/- are concerned, there would be no appeal' provided. I do not think, there is any anomaly involved there­in. It is obvious that in regard to sales not exceeding the value of Rs. It is, how­ever, argued that if the above interpretation is adopted, the result would be that in so far as sales not exceeding the value of Rs 5,000/- are concerned, there would be no appeal' provided. I do not think, there is any anomaly involved there­in. It is obvious that in regard to sales not exceeding the value of Rs. 5,000/- the officer holding the sale is taken to be the final autho­rity and these terms and conditions might well contemplate that in cases of such petty sales, where the stake is almost nominal, it is not neces­sary that the matter should be prolonged to any extent by allowing appeals of this nature. A discretion has to be left to the officer pri­marily responsible for -making settlements and holding the sales to make settlements of this petty nature effective. Therefore, the absence of any such provision does not militate against the construction, which has been put upon the lang­uage of the paragraph and which clearly follows from it. On the contrary, if the Respondents' contention is accepted, there would be no right of appeal available at all to the aggrieved party, when the value of the sale is above Rs. 25,000/-and the power of confirmation lies with the Gov­ernment. I am loath to assume that in sales of such high value, it was ever intended to de­prive the party aggrieved of his right to appeal to the Government. (7) That being so, in my opinion, an appeal to the Conservator of Forests was necessary be­fore any appeal could be filed and entertained by the State Government. It is not disputed by the parties that in this case there was no appeal filed before the Conservator of Forests at all. After the Conservator of Forests had affirmed the sale hi favour of the Petitioner and directed settle­ment of the Fishery with him, it was not open to the State Government to interfere in the mat­ter and entertain an appeal, which under the con­ditions of paragraph 11, did not He to the State Government. By virtue of the confirmation, the petitioner had acquired a valuable right. The order of the State Government, there­fore, appears to be clearly unauthorised and un­warranted by the terms and conditions contained in the sale notice by which the parties are ad­mittedly bound and such an order cannot ope­rate to defeat the interest of the Petitioner. By virtue of the confirmation, the petitioner had acquired a valuable right. The order of the State Government, there­fore, appears to be clearly unauthorised and un­warranted by the terms and conditions contained in the sale notice by which the parties are ad­mittedly bound and such an order cannot ope­rate to defeat the interest of the Petitioner. An authority in support of the Petitioner's conten­tion is the decision of this Court in Krishnapada v. The State of Assam Civil Rule No. 143 of 1955: (AIR 1957 Assam 174) (A), by myself and Deka J., on 22-5-1957. (8) We accordingly allow this application and direct that the order dated 9-9-1957 shall not be given effect to and the settlement made by the Conservator of Forests in favour of the peti­tioner shall prevail. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs. Hearing fee is Rs. 50/-. Since the matter has been contested both by the State Gov­ernment as well as by the Respondent No. 5, they are both jointly liable for payment of his costs. R.G.D. Application allowed.