G. MEHROTRA, J.: All these three cases arise out of the same proceeding and can be dealt with by one common judgment. Briefly the facts giving rise to these cases are that on 7th February, 1957, an auction for settlement of fishery No. 23 Chilochi beel along with two other fisheries Nos. 23 and 57 in a group for settling them for three years-1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 was held by the Sub-divi­sional Officer, Barpeta. As many as 5 bidders par­ticipated in the auction Harinath Das, who will hereinafter be called the petitioner and Bharat Chandra Das, who is the opposite party No. 3 in the petition filed by Harinath and will here­inafter be called opposite party, were two of the-bidders. The highest bid in the 'auction was of Rs. 20,100/-, given by the petitioned and according to him, the next bid was that of the opposite party for Rs. 19,000/-. The auction sale was knocked down at the said amount of Rs. 20,100/- in the name of the petitioner and the bid was accepted by the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated 7th February, 1957. The order is as follows : "Sold to the highest bidder Hari Nath Das son of late Ramo Ram Das of Barpeta Town Nawkhandapur at Rs. 20,100/-." (2) The papers of the auction sale were then forwarded to the Commissioner of Plains Divi­sion, Assam, for confirmation of the sale as pro­vided under the Fishery Settlement Rules. The petitioner further states that he came to know that an appeal was also filed on behalf of the opposite party, challenging the settlement of the fishery by the Sub-divisional Officer with the peti­tioner on the ground that he had given a further bid of Rs. 21,0007- which was not recorded by the Sub-divisional Officer. It was also claimed by Bharat Ch. Das that he was a member of the Namasudra community and thus entitled to be given preference. The Commissioner, while considering the •question of the confirmation of the auction sale, appears to have heard the appeal of Bharat Ch. Das also in the absence of the parties and by his order dated 4th April, 1957, refused confirmation of the auction sale in favour of the petitioner and directed that the said fishery should be set­tled with Bharat Ch. Das, on payment of Rs. 20,100/-. Das also in the absence of the parties and by his order dated 4th April, 1957, refused confirmation of the auction sale in favour of the petitioner and directed that the said fishery should be set­tled with Bharat Ch. Das, on payment of Rs. 20,100/-. The Commissioner's order has been chal­lenged by means of the petition in this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is also prayed that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 who are the State of Assam and the Com­missioner of Plains Division be directed to for­bear to enforce the order dated 4th April, 1957, This petition has been numbered as Civil R. 39/ 57. The petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Plains Division dated the 4th April, 1957, refusing confirmation of the settlement of the fishery No. 23 auctioned along with Fishery Nos. 23 and 57 in the Barpeta Sub-division which was settled with the appel­lant by the Sub-divisional Officer, Barpeta, by his order of settlement dated 7th February, 1957 for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 and •directing the settlement with the respondent. This appeal is numbered as Revenue Appeal No. 28 (M)/47. Civil Rule No. 12 (M)/57 arises out of an application filed by Bharat Ch. Das for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Sub-divisional Officer, Barpeta, not to prevent him from further fishing in the fishery. This petition was ordered to be listed along with the other two matters. (3) The main question, therefore, to be consi­dered in these cases is about the validity of the order, passed by the Commissioner. The matter was referred to a Special Bench as correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court, reported in Assam Fisheries Farms and Industries Ltd. v. Development Commissioner, Assam, ILR (1953) 5 Assam 354: (AIR 1953 Assam 155) (A), was doubted by one of the learned Judges of this Court. (4) In the exercise of the powers conferred by Ss. 155 and 156 of the Assam Land and Re­venue Regulation, 1886 and by S. 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 (Act IV of 1897), the Gov­ernor of Assam has framed certain rules for the settlement of the fisheries. The first part of the rules deals with the general matters and settle­ment of fisheries. 155 and 156 of the Assam Land and Re­venue Regulation, 1886 and by S. 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 (Act IV of 1897), the Gov­ernor of Assam has framed certain rules for the settlement of the fisheries. The first part of the rules deals with the general matters and settle­ment of fisheries. The term 'fishery' has been de­fined under R. 1 (a) of the Rules as meaning water declared to be a fishery by proclamation is­sued under S. 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (I of 1886) and includes Kheos or fishways, dobas and beels; and fish includes shell­fish and turtles. Rule 2 of the Rules provides for the maintenance of a Register of the fisheries. Rule 3 which provides for the sale of the fisheries is as follows : "The Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divi­sional Officer, as the case may be, shall annually fix a date, ordinarily not later than the 15th February, for the sale of all registered fisheries held under leases expiring on the last day of the current year or which at the last previous auc­tions were reserved from sale under R. 9. The date fixed shall be proclaimed by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer, at least a month in advance by a written notice in Form No. 101 of the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. II posted at the Sadar and Sub-divisional Cuthery and at the Munsiff and Police Station with­in the local limits of which the fishery or any part of it is situated. The notice shall state the name of the fishery, the mauza of pargana within which it is situated, and any other particulars that may be last auction (sic) and the term for which it will now be sold, and the date, place, and conditions of sale." Rule 4 then provides for the place of sale and R. 5 lays down the conditions of sale. The first con­dition is that the Officer conducting the sale does not bind himself; to accept the highest bid or any bid. The purchaser has immediately, after the ac­ceptance of his bid to furnish as security a sum equal to one quarter of a year's revenue and may be required to furnish within seven days of the date of sale additional security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner. The purchaser has immediately, after the ac­ceptance of his bid to furnish as security a sum equal to one quarter of a year's revenue and may be required to furnish within seven days of the date of sale additional security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner. Immediately after the acceptance of the bid, he is to furnish as secu­rity a sum not less than one-eighth of a year's revenue. In case he fails to furnish the initial or the additional security, the fishery is to be resold at his risk. The fishery is also to be resold at the risk of the bidder-purchaser if he fails to execute a counter-part within one month from the date of the auction of the fishery. When the sale has been concluded, a lease and counterpart is inter­changed in Forms Nos. 98 and 99 of the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol II. Rule 8 of the Rules provides that all sales in a district are to be re­ported to the Commissioner of Divisions for ap­proval in Form No. 100 of the Assam Land Re­venue Manual Vol II. Rule 11 which is the mate­rial rule to the question in these proceedings is as follows : "All orders of a Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer passed under these rules are appealable to the Assam High Court. Orders of settlement, however, will be appealable only after confirmation by the Commissioner of Divi­sions. Provided that there shall be no appeal against an order of settlement, passed by the State Government under R. 12." Rule 12 provides that no fishery shall be settled otherwise than by sale except by the State Gov­ernment. The order of settlement passed by the State Government be final. Provided that the State Government may introduce the tender sys­tem of settlement of fisheries in place of sale by auction system whenever it is considered neces­sary. Rule 11 of the Rules, in my opinion, does not give any right of appeal against the order of the Commissioner acting under R. 8 of the Rules. All auction sales have got to be reported to the Commissioner for confirmation and any power exercised under R. 8 by the Commissioner and any order passed by him in the exercise of that power has not been made appealable to this Court under R. 11 of the Rules. All auction sales have got to be reported to the Commissioner for confirmation and any power exercised under R. 8 by the Commissioner and any order passed by him in the exercise of that power has not been made appealable to this Court under R. 11 of the Rules. The orders passed by the Deputy Commis­sioner or by the Sub-divisional Officer have only been made appealable. The other limitation plac­ed under the rules on the right of appeal to this Court is that no such appeal can be filed unless after the confirmation of sale by the Commis­sioner of Divisions. This provision, in my opi­nion, clearly indicates that till the auction sale has not been confirmed by the Commissioner, the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divisional Officer, accepting the highest bid, re­mains only a provisional order. The offer is liable to be finalised after it has been confirmed by the Commissioner. It is the final order of settlement which has been made appealable to this Court under R. 11 and not an order passed by the Deputy Commis­sioner or Sub-divisional Officer referring the matter for confirmation or that of the Commissioner confirming or refusing to confirm an auction sale. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by Harinath Das against the order of the Commissioner is not competent. The Commissioner, according to the petitioner, gave a direction for the settlement of the fishery with the opposite party - Bharat Ch. Das; but that is not a final order of settlement by the Commissioner. It is not even an order of settlement passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divi­sional Officer, so as to give Harinath Das a right of appeal against that order. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that his client has come up in appeal against the order of the Sub-divi­sional Officer, making settlement with the oppo­site party, Bharat Ch, Das, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Commissioner; the right of appeal given against an order of settlement includes the right of appeal against the order of refusal to settle and as the effect of the order of the Commissioner had been that the settlement had been made with Bharat Ch- Das and had teen refused in favour of his client, he has a right to come up in appeal. The answer to this contention is that in the appeal, the impugned order mentioned is one dated 4th April, 1957 of the Commissioner and no order of the Sub-divisional Officer, passed after the order ,of the Commissioner dated 4th April, 1957 has been filed nor any prayer has been made to set aside any such order. It is also not clear whether any order of settlement has been passed in compliance with the direction is­sued by the Commissioner, by his order dated 4th April, 1957. Reference in 'this connection be made to the case of Nayab Ali v. Mahadev Ch. Das, ILR (1949) 1 Assam 534 (B), which I shall have to refer to later also. (5) Coming to the application filed under Arts. 2215 and 227 of the Constitution, it is con­tended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Commissioner in so far as he direct­ed the settlement of the fishery with Bharat Ch. Das is without jurisdiction; the only power given to the Commissioner under Rule 8 of the Rules is either to confirm or to refuse to confirm a sale and he had no right to further direct settlement with any party; the order of the Commissioner thus is without jurisdiction and should be quash­ed by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question to, be considered is whether it is a. case in which this Court will exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The power exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 8 of the Rules is an administrative power and this Court will be reluctant to interfere with the administrative order in the exercise of; its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The next question to be considered is whether the power to confirm given to the Commissioner under Rule 8 of the Rules includes a power to issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner to settle a fishery with one of the bidders. (6) The main contention raised by the app­licant is that the Commissioner in directing the Sub-divisional Officer to settle the fishery with the opposite party Bharat Ch. Das has in substance exercised an appellate power; the power given under Rule 8 of the rules does not include a power to direct the Deputy Commi­ssioner to settle the fishery with any of the bidders. Das has in substance exercised an appellate power; the power given under Rule 8 of the rules does not include a power to direct the Deputy Commi­ssioner to settle the fishery with any of the bidders. It is further contended that in the pre­sent case where the rules have provided for a right of appeal against the order of settlement to this Court, it is the High Court alone which has the power to consider in appeal the) validity of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer accepting the bid, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of settlement and substitute his own order in place of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer and direct settlement of the fishery with any of the bidders. After the bids have been completed, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to accept the bid. It is not obligatory under the rules for the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer to accept the highest bid or as a matter of fact any of the bids. After the auction has taken place, the en­tire matter is to be reported to the Commissioner for his confirmation. The right of appeal against the order of settlement also arises only after the sale has been confirmed by the Commissioner. By a reading of these rules, it is clear that the power to accept the bid and the power of the Commis­sioner to confirm the sale are both administra­tive powers. The fact that the order of the settle­ment passed by the Deputy Commissioner is ap­pealable to this Court does not in any way affect the position that the power given to the Sub-divisional Officer to accept or to reject the bids is an administrative power. The Commissioner, when acting under R. 8, also acts in his administrative capacity and he has got control over all the sales of the fishery rights in the districts. The power necessarily therefore exercised by him under the aforesaid rule is an administrative power. The power which is exercised by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer of accepting or refusing the bids is a discretionary power and so also the power of the Commissioner to confirm the sale to the highest bidder is discretionary. The power necessarily therefore exercised by him under the aforesaid rule is an administrative power. The power which is exercised by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer of accepting or refusing the bids is a discretionary power and so also the power of the Commissioner to confirm the sale to the highest bidder is discretionary. If in exer­cise of the administrative control over the sales held by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divi­sional Officer concerned, while not confirming the sale in favour of the highest bidder, the Commis­sion makes a recommendation that any particu­lar bid should be accepted, it cannot be said that such an order is without jurisdiction and should be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (7) There is nothing in R. 8 which precludes the Commissioner, while examining the report of the Deputy Commissioner, sent to him for con­firmation of the sale to consider various matters and to advise the Deputy Commissioner about the manner in which the settlement is to be made and the particular bidder in whose favour the settlement should be made. Ultimate settlement is to be made by the De­puty Commissioner himself and there is nothing to debar the Deputy Commissioner when ulti­mately settling the fisheries to be guided by the advice of the Commissioner. If in making the final settlement, the Deputy Commissioner has violated any principle of law or has acted ille­gally and arbitrarily, the order is appealable to this Court and can be examined on merits. But it cannot be said that the Commissioner in mak­ing any such recommendation has acted illegally or arbitrarily so as to give power to this Court to interfere with his order under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (8) It was strongly contended that what the Commissioner did in this case was in effect to exercise appellate power against the order of the Sub-divisional Officer. There is no substance in my judgment in this contention. It cannot be argued that the Commissioner has no power to refuse to confirm the auction sale, which will re­sult in the cancellation of the order of the acceptance of the petitioner's bid. It is not reason­able to interpret the rules in a manner so as to lead to the result that there will be a fresh sale every time if the highest bid has not been accept­ed by the Commissioner. It is not reason­able to interpret the rules in a manner so as to lead to the result that there will be a fresh sale every time if the highest bid has not been accept­ed by the Commissioner. In so interpreting the whole object of the auction sale will be nullified. Even if the highest bid has not been accepted by the Commissioner it may be open to the Deputy Commissioner not to hold any resale and accept any of the other bid and send it for confirmation to the Commissioner. This being so, there can be no bar to the Com­missioner while refusing confirmation, to recom­mend the case of another bidder, specially when he does so in accordance with R. 13. In such a case he is not passing any final order of settle­ment and cannot be said to be exercising any ap­pellate jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court. (9) Reliance was placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the case of ILR (1949) 1 Assam 534 (B). Particular reference was made to the following observations at page 535 : "Under executive R. 187' of the Rules framed under Oh. X, the learned Development Commis­sioner could either sanction the sales or refuse to sanction them; he was not empowered to settle the fisheries upon another person of his own choice even if his choice was justified by the rules. .. The Development Commissioner has either to sanction or refuse to sanction the sales reported to him by the Sub-divisional Officer. There is no provision in the Executive Instruc­tions or in the Land and Revenue Regulation which authorises the Development Commissioner to make a settlement upon any individual. To that extent, the order of the learned Development Commissioner is clearly erroneous." In 'that case also, it was held by Thadani, C. J that no appeal lay against the order of the Development Commissioner granting or refusing con­firmation. Moreover, in that case, the Develop­ment Commissioner, not only declined to accept the settlement of the fishery with the appellant, but himself ordered settlement of the fishery with the third party. As I have already indicated, the Commissioner has no power to settle the fishery himself with the third party. But there is no bar to his making a recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner, or even directing him to settle the fisheries in accordance with rules. As I have already indicated, the Commissioner has no power to settle the fishery himself with the third party. But there is no bar to his making a recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner, or even directing him to settle the fisheries in accordance with rules. (10) Reference was also made to the case of K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 (C). In that case, the contract for the excise licence of the Bangalore City Liquor shop was auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner and the bid of one Guruswamy was knocked down at Rs. 1,80,000/- a month as the highest bid. The contract was thus knocked down in his favour subject to confirmation by the Deputy Commis­sioner. The requisite amount was deposited by him that very day. The respondent in that case was present in the auction, but he did not bid. After the contract had been knocked down in (favour of the appellant, the respondent went to the Excise Commissioner and made a higher of­fer of Rs. 1.85,QOO/-. The Excise Commissioner then passed the following order : "The highest bid received in the recent auc­tion sale is Rs. 1,80,000/- per mensem. As Sri Thimmappa has now offered Rs. 1,85,000/- per mensem, the sale held by the Deputy Commis­sioner is cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district is requested to take further action under the R. 10 of Rules regulating the sales of Excise Privileges." Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner accepted the tender of Sri Thimmappa. The appellant then, applied to the High Court for a Writ of Manda­mus and it was dismissed. On appeal, the Su­preme Court held that the cancellation by the!-Excise Commissioner was proper and that the ap­pellant acquired no right to the licence by mere fact that the contract had been knocked down in his favour. He was therefore not entitled to any relief and his right to the licence was refus­ed. As regards the grant of licence to Thimmappa by the subsequent order of the Deputy Commis­sioner, it was no doubt held that he had no power to grant a licence to the respondent in the appeal and thus introduce a new procedure, which was characterised by the Supreme Court as arbitrary improvisation of an Ad Hoc procedure to meet the exigencies of a particular case and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. In that case, what was set aside, was the ulti­mate order of the Deputy Commissioner, granting licence to Thimmappa and not the order of the Excise Commissioner who cancelled the licence in favour of the appellant and recommended to the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in accordance with the Rules and send the tender of Thim­mappa to him. Besides this, in that case, the res­pondent was not one of the bidders at the auc­tion. Any grant of licence to him was an intro­duction of a new procedure. In the present case, the opposite party was one of the bidders. There was power in the Deputy Commissioner to accent any of the bids and under R. 13, the opposite party had claimed to be a Scheduled caste fisher­man and as such he could exercise an option of getting the settlement in his favour on the highest bid. In the circumstances, when the Commissioner issued a direction, he did not, in fact, introduced any new procedure for the settlement of the fisheries. Even if the Sub-divisional Officer acts under that direction, he would not be introduc­ing any new procedure of the settlement of there fisheries. From the perusal of the order of the-Commissioner also it is clear that he has acted conformity with R. 13 in directing the Sub-divisional Officer to settle the fishery right with opposite party, Bharat Chandra Das. Rule 1 reads as follows : "Registered Co-operative Fishery Societies formed by actual fishermen of the Scheduled caste and individual actual fisherman of the Scheduled caste, giving substantial bid in the sale, shall be given the option of taking settlement of fisheries at the highest bid in order of preference as stated above. (b) When a fishery bid value of which does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- is settled with anyone falling within one of the above two categories, the lessee shall get a rebate of 10 per cent as concession." (11) It was brought to the notice of the Com­missioner and the Commissioner examined all the materials before him and came to the conclusion? that the opposite party was entitled to the bene­fit of R. 13 and directed the Sub-divisional Officer to settle the fishery with him in accordance with the provisions of R. 13. that the opposite party was entitled to the bene­fit of R. 13 and directed the Sub-divisional Officer to settle the fishery with him in accordance with the provisions of R. 13. As I have already refer­red to the R. 13 that gives an option to a Schedul­ed caste fisherman if he had been a bidder hi the auction to ask for the settlement of the fishery on payment of the amount of the highest bid and if that aspect of the matter is pointed out by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has exceeded his powers and thus this Court should interfere with his directions. It was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the option of the actual fisherman is only at the time when the auction sale is com­pleted and the Scheduled caste bidder has to point out to the Deputy Commissioner imme­diately after the bids have been completed that he intended to exercise such an option. Once the matter has been referred to the Commissioner for confirmation, the option cannot be exercised thereafter. Rule 13 does not lay down, in my opi­nion, that the option has to be exercised only at the time of the auction sale or immediately thereafter. That the option is to be exercised after the sale is over and all the bids have been com­pleted is also deducible from the fact that the Scheduled caste fishermen will be in a position, to make an offer that he was prepared to take the settlement at the highest bid only after the auction sale has finished. (12) As I have already pointed out, the settle­ment does not finalise till it has been confirmed by the Commissioner. Till then it remains in a state of suspense and it is only an offer by the highest bidder. At any time before the sale is finalised by an order of settlement, in my opi­nion, the option under R. 13 can be exercised by the Scheduled caste fisherman and the right to exercise such an option is not exhausted as soon as the sale is reported for confirmation to the Commissioner. At any time before the sale is finalised by an order of settlement, in my opi­nion, the option under R. 13 can be exercised by the Scheduled caste fisherman and the right to exercise such an option is not exhausted as soon as the sale is reported for confirmation to the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, it can­not be said that the Commissioner had no power to point out to the Deputy Commissioner that he should have given the option to the opposite party to accept the settlement on paying the amount of the highest bid in accordance with the provisions of R. 13. It is not disputed in the present case that the opposite party belongs to the Scheduled caste. What is disputed is that he is not an actual fisher­man by profession, and the complaint is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to con­test this fact alleged by the opposite party before the Commissioner. If it is not a fact that the opposite party is a fisherman of the Scheduled caste, it is open to the petitioner to point out to the Sub-divisional Officer who has to make the final settlement and to satisfy him that the oppo­site party in fact is not a fisherman and thus not entitled to the benefit of R. 13. But the order of the Commissioner which amounts only to a direc­tion to the Sub-divisional Officer to comply with the provision of R. 13 cannot be held to be with­out jurisdiction. (13) In the result, therefore, I would dismiss R. A. No. 28(M)/57 and Civil Rule No. 39/57. In view of our decision in the Civil Rule and the Revenue Appeal, it is not necessary to pass any order on Civil Rule No. 12(M)/57. SARJOO PKOSAD, C. J. : (14) I substantially agree with the decision of Mehrotra, J-, in these cases and I would only add that I have found nothing convincing in the argument of the learned counsel for the peti­tioner, in Civil Rule No. 3" of 1957 to doubt the correctness of our judgment in ILR (1953) 5 Assam 354: (AIR 1953 Assam 155) (A). The above earlier decision of this Court clearly co­vers the points involved and canvassed in these cases. The above earlier decision of this Court clearly co­vers the points involved and canvassed in these cases. As a result, the decision of the Court 13 that Civil Rule No. 39 of 1957 and Revenue Ap­peal No. 28 (M) of 1957 must fail and should be dismissed with costs, there being a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 200/-; while Civil Rule No. 12 (M) of 1957 should be discharged as infructuous. H. DEKA, J. : (15) These are three connected matters. Civil Rule No. 39/57 was issued at the instance of Harinath Das calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the writ as prayed for should not be issued quashing the order of the Commis­sioner of Plains Division Assam dated 4th April, 1957 directing settlement of a fishery (or a group of fisheries) with Bharat Chandra, Opposite Party No. 3- Revenue Appeal No. 28(M)/57 is an appeal purported to be one against the settlement of fisheries by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta with respondent BJiarat Chandra Das in pur­suance of the order of the Commissioner of Divi­sion dated 4-4-1957 and Civil Rule No. 12(M)/57 is connected with the said order of settlement and Bharat Chandra Das, the lessee, has moved this Court to issue an appropriate order on the Sub-Divisional Officer of Barpeta directing him not to prevent the petitioner in the matter of fish­ing in the group of fisheries settled with him. (16) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Meh­rotra J., wherein he has described the facts of this case in detail. I need not therefore refer to the matters in detail as in substance the facts are clearly stated, namely that a bid was held for sale of fisheries in pursuance of the rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation: for settlement of fisheries and on 7-2-1957 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta who held the sale, accepted the highest bid offered by Harinath Das, the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 39, for a sum of Rs. 20,1007- as the annual premium for the fisheries registered as Fishery No. 23 Chilochi Beel along with two other small fisheries. (17) Rule 8 of the Fishery Rules runs as fol­lows : "8. 20,1007- as the annual premium for the fisheries registered as Fishery No. 23 Chilochi Beel along with two other small fisheries. (17) Rule 8 of the Fishery Rules runs as fol­lows : "8. Confirmation of sale : All sales of fisheries in a district shall be reported to the Commissioner of Divisions for approval in Form No. 100 of the Assam Land Revenue Manual, Volume II." It is important to consider what form No. 100 of Volume II contains. It is in the following form: The real point for decision in this case is what are the powers enjoined under this rule to the Commissioner, namely what the word 'approval' occurring in the rule would mean in the context taking the rule as a whole. It was held by Thadani, C. J-, in one of the earlier decisions of this Court reported in ILR (1949) 1 Assam 534 (B), that the word approval as occurring in former R. 187 of the Rules framed under Chapter X relat­ing to settlement of, fisheries, the learned Develop­ment Commissioner could either sanction the sales or refuse to sanction them but he was not empowered to settle the fisheries or direct settle­ment of them upon another person of his own choice even if his choice was justified by the rules. The Development Commissioner has either to sanction or refuse to sanction the sales reported to him and there was nothing in the rules to authorise the Development Commissioner to make a settlement upon an individual. In a later decision of this Court reported in AIR 1953 Assam 155 (corresponding to ILR (1953) 5 Assam 354 (A), Sarjoo Prosad, C. J. and Ram Labhaya J. held interpreting the same rule that the power of the Development Commissioner while acting under this rule was not confined only to the ac­ceptance or refusal of the sale as made by the officer conducting the sale, but he could on the materials before him direct the settlement in favour of some other bidder. (18) While the present set of rules and appeal came up before the Hon. Chief Justice and myself for hearing I was tentatively of the opinion that the rule relating to the approval which is number­ed as R. 8 under the present set of rules, should not be so liberally interpreted as was done in the later decision of this Court and the power of the Commissioner is confined only either to approval or refusal of the bid as forwarded to him as was the view held by C. J. Thadani on the earlier deci­sion reported. As a result, the matter was referred to a larger bench. Even now I must say with some regret, as I have to differ from my learned colleagues, that I am not prepared to accept a wider interpretation of the R. 8, as sought by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State who relies on the later decision of this Court. In interpreting this rule I feel obliged to con­fine myself to the wordings and ingredients of the rule itself than to the interpretation given by the learned Judges in deciding the case of AIR 1953 Assam 155 (A). I cannot lose sight of the fact that all that the Commissioner should be fur­nished with is a statement in Form No. 100 (quot­ed above)-which authorises furnishing him only the number of fisheries, the name and situation of fishery, the name of person with whom settled, the particulars of the former settlement, namely the period and the price and the present or the proposed settlement, the period and price and remarks if any. It does not contemplate that the Commis­sioner who enjoys the same powers as the Deve­lopment Commissioner under the Executive In­structions then existing, should come to a deci­sion as to the reasonableness of acceptance of the bid in consideration of the suitability of other bidders, but that he should consider whether the particular bid is to be accepted in consideration of the ingredients contained in the report in Form No. 100 which I have alluded to. The rule does not require that all the papers including bid sheets should be forwarded to him. In my opi­nion, we should look to the letter of the law or the actual provision of the R. 8 - as framed and not to a hypothetical purpose behind the rules- not mentioned therein. The rule does not require that all the papers including bid sheets should be forwarded to him. In my opi­nion, we should look to the letter of the law or the actual provision of the R. 8 - as framed and not to a hypothetical purpose behind the rules- not mentioned therein. The learned Judges in deciding the case re­ported in AIR 1953 Assam 155 (A), considered only the advisability that the reasonableness of the settlement should be decided once for all in consideration of all the bidders, but in my opi­nion that is not what the rule contemplates. Otherwise there would be no mention of the re­port being furnished in Form No. 100, which forms an inseparable part of the rule itself. Even the contents of R. 13 is not for the Commissioner to decide. It has been contended by the learned Advocate General that the R. 8 gives the Commis­sioner only an administrative power but even though exercising administrative power he is con­fined to what the rule provides and not beyond. From the statements made a the petitions and the order of the Commissioner it would be clear that he was practically and in fact exercis­ing appellate powers which he had no right to do. Otherwise the High Court exercising the powers of the appellate Court under Rule 11 would be exercising only the powers of the second appellate Court which is not the intention of the set of rules. The learned Commissioner in my opinion should only see or examine as to whether he considers the particular bid accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Com­missioner to be reasonable or otherwise. In case he considers it to be undesirable in consideration of the bid given in the earlier year or for any other reason that may be stated in the remarks column, he may only approve or disapprove the bid and go no further. In case he considers it to be undesirable in consideration of the bid given in the earlier year or for any other reason that may be stated in the remarks column, he may only approve or disapprove the bid and go no further. The whole set of rules which was formerly termed as Executive Instructions are detached from the list of Executive Instruction and are set down as rules which are binding so far as settlement of fisheries is concerned and therefore the Commissioner while exercising his power under these rules cannot go beyond what is pro­vided and therefore if he exceeds his jurisdiction as contained in these rules, he acts beyond his jurisdiction and the High Court can take note of the same and pass appropriate orders quashing the said orders passed in excess of his jurisdiction or in exercise of its appellate powers when an appeal is filed. In this case it was quite clear that the Com­missioner considered other materials which he was not strictly required to be furnished with under the rules and if he passed any order in consideration of those factors, he could not be said to be acting within the limits of his juris­diction. The order in this particular case would make it abundantly clear that the Commissioner went into merits of the settlement and was exer­cising appellate powers in the matter of settle­ment and he passed the impugned order setting aside the order of sale passed by the Sub-Divi­sional Officer which he had no right to do except to say that he did not approve of the settlement. The order runs as follows : "The settlement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta with Sri Harinath Das, who does not belong to the Scheduled caste, without offer­ing settlement at the highest bid to the second highest bidder Sri Bharat Chandra Das who be­longs to the Scheduled caste and is a fisherman by profession, is not in order. In the circumstances the settlement with Sri Harinath Das is not ap­proved and it is to be made with Shri Bharat Chandra Das at Rs. 20,1007- the highest bid, if he accepts and gives proper securities etc. Shri Rajindra Izardar's case is not considered as his bid is lower than that of Sri Sharat Chandra Das and he is also a defaulter in respect of the rest fishery dues. Sd. 20,1007- the highest bid, if he accepts and gives proper securities etc. Shri Rajindra Izardar's case is not considered as his bid is lower than that of Sri Sharat Chandra Das and he is also a defaulter in respect of the rest fishery dues. Sd. A. N; Kidwai, Commissioner of Plains Division, Assam." It is admitted by both parties that the Commis­sioner passed this order on an appeal preferred by Bharat Chandra Das and other bidders and therefore it will be only a travesty of truth or a figment of imagination to say that he passed the order in exercise of the powers vested in him under R. 8 purely as an administrative officer and at his own instance. In this case the order may be just or unjust on merits as to which I do not want to express any opinion, but in my opi­nion the learned Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in directing settlement with a third party, purporting to exercise his powers under Fishery Rule 8. (19) Rule 1J of the sale of fisheries provides that an appeal would be competent against an order of settlement only after a sale is confirmed under R. 8 by the Commissioner. In this case one might argue that there has been no approval of any sale as contemplated under R. 8 and there­fore no appeal would be competent against the settlement so made at the recommendation of the Commissioner. This is not what the rules contem­plate. What the rules contemplate is that the sale by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divi­sional Officer becomes final only on approval by the Commissioner and in the case of sales recom­mended by the Commissioner there is no provi­sion for acceptance of the same by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer and sending them once again to the Commissioner for approval. If the intention of the Legislature or the rule making authority was that the Commissioner's opinion should prevail in the matter of suitability of the bidders of fisheries, the rules should have so provided, but on the other hand his power is limited only to the extent of approval of the bid recommended by the officer holding the sale. If the intention of the Legislature or the rule making authority was that the Commissioner's opinion should prevail in the matter of suitability of the bidders of fisheries, the rules should have so provided, but on the other hand his power is limited only to the extent of approval of the bid recommended by the officer holding the sale. In my opinion therefore the obvious intention oft the rules was that the Commissioner enjoyed only limited power namely of approval or otherwise and did not enjoy the power of recommendation as contended by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State or the learned Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3. (20) The learned Advocate General further relied on the interpretation of the word 'appro­val' in the case of Kali Kanta v. The State of Assam, ILR (1954) 6 Assam 479: (AIR 1954 As­sam 261) (D). There the word was interpreted in connection with a different situation and the word 'approval' might at times authorise the offi­cer exercising the power of approval making his own suggestions. In this particular case there is a direct reference in the rule itself to the subject which may be considered by the Commissioner. In my opinion he did not enjoy the power of recommendation or of nominating a bidder of his own choice as was done in this particular case. Therefore the order of the learned Commissioner dated 4-4-1957 should be set aside inasmuch as the learned Commissioner exceeded his jurisdic­tion in purporting to act within the scope of R. 8 of the Fishery Rules. (21) Since my learned brother Mehrotra J., has expressed the opinion that it will still be open to Harinath Das to agitate the matter before the Sub-Divisional Officer as to whether Bharat Chandra Das is a fisherman of the Scheduled caste or not, I am in full agreement that the (order in appeal should be passed in that form land a similar order should be passed in the Civil Rule No. 39/57 by setting aside the order of the Commissioner so far as his recommendation of Bharat Chandra Das was concerned. In these circumstances there is no need of any separate order for the rule issued at the instance of Bharat Chandra Das which is numbered as Civil Rule No. 12(M)/57. V.S.B. Orders accordingly.