DUTTA, C. J.: Civil Rules Nos. 68 and 144 of 1968 are analogous and they are heard together and a single judgment is delivered. The petitioner's case in Civil Rule No. 68 of 1968 is that he is a citizen of India and a member of the Scheduled Caste community and also an actual fisher­man by profession. He is the sitting lessee of Fishery No. 2/88 Dharnad Brahmaputra Parts II, III and other group Fishery in the District of Goalpara which was settl­ed with him for three years ending on 31-3-68. But the aforesaid fishery was settled by the Governor of Assam on the 20th Feburary 1968 in exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules with respondent No. 4 for the period from 1-4-68 to 31-3-71 at an annual revenue of Rs. 18006. This settle­ment with respondent is being challenged by this writ petition. 2. The main contention of Dr. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid R. 12 of the Fishery, Rules is violative of Art. 14 of the Con­stitution of India. He submits that by this Rule an unguided and uncanalised power Is given to the executive to pick and choose any fishery for direct settlement and then to settle it with somebody arbitrarily. Section 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation debars the settlement of proclaimed fisheries except in accordance with rules. Rule 12 is also bad, according to Dr. Medhi. on the ground that two procedures for settle­ment of fisheries are laid down, viz. tender system and direct settlement by the Government and the Government can choose any of these procedures at its sweet will. The direct settlement pres­cribed by Rule 12 is a more stringent procedure and it must therefore be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the Rule is violative of Art 19 (l)(g) of the Constitution as it imposes unreason­able restriction on the right to practise a profession. 3. I may examine the history of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. First I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Keshab Prasad Singh, AIR 1953 SC 309 . When that case arose, Rule 12 was not yet made. 3. I may examine the history of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. First I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Keshab Prasad Singh, AIR 1953 SC 309 . When that case arose, Rule 12 was not yet made. It was observed by the Supreme Court that fisheries in Assam were such a lucrative source of revenue that the legislature considered it undesirable to leave their settlements to the unfettered discretion either of the Provincial Govern­ment or of a single individual however; eminent he might be. That is why Sec­tion 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was enacted. The first para­graph of this section reads as follows:-- "16. The Deputy Commissioner, with She previous sanction of the State Gov­ernment, may, by proclamation published In the prescribed manner, declare any collection of water, running or still, to be a fishery; and no right in any fishery so declared shall be deemed to have been acquired by the public or any person, either before or after the commencement of this Regulation, except as provided in the rules made under section 155." The Supreme Court pointed out that once a fishery was so declared no person could acquire fishing right in it except as pro­vided by rules drawn up under S. 155. 4. There was at that time Rule 190A which read as follows:- "No fishery shall be settled otherwise than by sale as provided in the preced­ing instructions except with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government." The Supreme Court held that this rule did no allow the Government to lift the sale of a fishery out of the rules when­ever Government found it convenient and then to dispose it of by executive action. It only authorised the Government to ask the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in a manner which was not quite in ac­cordance with the instructions contained in the Rules. If rule 190A was construed to mean that it permitted the Govern­ment to lift a fishery out of the Rules, the rule would have been repugnant to Section 16 of the Regulation. After the above judgment, rule 12 came to be made in place of rule 190A and it runs as follows:- "12. No fishery shall be settled other­wise than by sale except by the State Government. After the above judgment, rule 12 came to be made in place of rule 190A and it runs as follows:- "12. No fishery shall be settled other­wise than by sale except by the State Government. The order of settlement passed by the State Government shall 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." 5. In the case of Nuruddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, AIR 1956 Assam 48, the validity of this rule came to be consider­ed by a Division Bench of this Court. It was held in that case that rule 12 was antagonistic to the spirit of Section 16 of the Regulation. Rule 12 was inter­preted as giving arbitrary powers to the Government to make settlements of fisheries. It was pointed out that it was a colourable exercise of the rule-making power to make a rule like rule 12 and thereby make Section 16 of the Regula­tion infructuous. But in Ganga Ram Das v. Tezpur Kaibarta Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 377 . the vali­dity of the rule 12 came up for con­sideration before the Supreme Court. It was held that an exception to settlement of fisheries by sale was made by this rule under which the State Government was empowered to settle fisheries otherwise than by sale. Rule 12 was construed by the Supreme Court to mean that the State Government had the unfettered discretion to settle fisheries directly if the circumstances of the case so warranted,; It was further pointed out that the Government was the best judge to decide as to whether the circumstances so warrant­ed or not. In view of this construction, it was held that Rule 12 was not repugnant to Section 16 of the Regulation. 6. Dr. Medhi submits that the ques­tion whether the rule gives unfettered? and uncanalised power to the Government to settle fisheries directly was not considered by the Supreme Court. It fit contended that under Rule 12 the Government can pick and choose any fisher for direct settlement and then arbitrarily settle it with anybody they like even at a loss of Government revenue. If this construction is given to the rule, undoubtedly it will be violative of Art l4 of the Constitution. But the constructions given by the Supreme Court save the rule. If this construction is given to the rule, undoubtedly it will be violative of Art l4 of the Constitution. But the constructions given by the Supreme Court save the rule. The rule means, according to this construction, that if special circumstances exist, the Government can make direct settlement. Secondly the Government is the best judge about the existence of special circumstances. Therefore if the Government has the subjective satisfaction that special circumstance exist for giving direct settlement, the Government can do so. Whether a particular circumstance is a special circum­stance or not warranting a direct settle-ment of a fishery is to be decided by the-Government and Government's opinion will be final. But it should be remembered that the exercise of discretion, even on subjective satisfaction, is no exercise of discretion if there is complete absence of material to arrive at a satis­faction. 7. In the petition it is contended that no occasion arose for the Government in this case to exercise power given in Rule 12 and to take out the fishery from; the ordinary procedure of settlement. According to the petitioner, he learnt that respondent No. 4 was making secret attempts to get a direct settlement of the fishery in question from the Government Thereupon the petitioner also filed an application for such a settlement But the settlement was made with res­pondent No. 4. From the above it is quite clear that the petitioner acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Government without raising any objection. It is not the petitioner's case that at that time he thought that the Government had jurisdiction and that it was only sub-' sequently he found out that it had no jurisdiction. 8.Dr. Medhi submits that there can be no waiver of a Fundamental Right. But in the present case there is no ques­tion of any such waiver. The point is that a writ being a discretionary remedy, it will not be granted if the petitioner invited or acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the authority. Dr. Medhi, however, contends that as there was total absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Govern­ment to settle the fishery under Rule 12 no question of acquiescence can raise. But a distinction must be made between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction. Dr. Medhi, however, contends that as there was total absence of jurisdiction on the part of the Govern­ment to settle the fishery under Rule 12 no question of acquiescence can raise. But a distinction must be made between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction. Where the lack of jurisdiction is patent i.e. apparent on the face of the proceed­ings, a party aggrieved is entitled to a writ even if he acquiesced to the exercise of the jurisdiction. Where, however, the lack of jurisdiction is latent i.e. It depends on certain factors, acquiescence will disentitle a party to a writ. In S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, AIR 1956 Bom 530 , Chagla, C. J. delivering the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, observed that where the want of jurisdiction was patent, it became a matter of right for a party to challenge the jurisdiction. He emphasised that the want of jurisdiction, must be patent for such a right. I respectfully agree with the above view. 9. In the present case there will be lack of jurisdiction of the Government only if there is complete absence of material on which an opinion can be formed as to the existence of special cir­cumstances warranting exercise of power under rule 12. Such a jurisdiction is latent and a person acquiescing to it will not be entitled to a writ. The failure of the petitioner to raise objection before the Government when it wanted to exercise power under Rule 12, disentitles him to a writ Dr. Medhi's contention that there are two methods of settling fisheries and that the Government can choose any of the methods at its sweet will, has no force. As I have said already, the pro­cedure of direct settlement can be adopt­ed only if in the opinion of the Govern­ment, special circumstances warrant it. The regulation of settlement of fisheries by Rules is a reasonable restriction on the right to fish and therefore Rule 12 does not offend Article 19 (1) (g) either. Civil Rule No. 144 of 1968. 10. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 144 is a Co-operative Fishery Society registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act 1949. The regulation of settlement of fisheries by Rules is a reasonable restriction on the right to fish and therefore Rule 12 does not offend Article 19 (1) (g) either. Civil Rule No. 144 of 1968. 10. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 144 is a Co-operative Fishery Society registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act 1949. The petitioner's case is that one Co-operative Society by name and style of Fishing Multipurpose Co­operative Society applied to the Govern­ment for direct settlement of Fishery No. 2 Chela Charkaria Fishery of North Lakhimpur of which the petitioner was the sitting lessee till 31-3-68. The petitioner getting information about the move of the above society also made an application to the Government for settle­ment of the fishery with it under R. 12 of the Fishery Rules. But the Govern­ment settled the fishery with opposite party No. 4. Hence the writ petition. 11. The points of law raised in this petition are similar to those raised in Civil Rule No. 68 of 1968 and hence the said points are covered by what is stated above. It is, however, pointed out that the petitioner in this case withdrew his application before the settlement was made by the Government But I do not think that it makes any difference. When the petitioner withdrew the application, he did not question the right of the Government to settle the fishery under Rule 12. Nor in his petition before us does he make any direct averment that no special circumstance existed for the Government to make settlement under Rule 12. In the circumstances, both the petitions are dismissed and .the rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. 12. K. C. SEN, J. -I agree. 13. M.C. PATHAK, J. - I agree. Petitions dismissed.