NAYUDU, C. J. : The simple point that calls for decision in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner Adarsha Fishery Co-operative Society, who claims to have obtained a settlement of Dhuli dowar Mahara Fishery, Regd. No. 16 in the Sub-division of North Lakhimpur for 3 years, from 1-4-67 to 31-3-70 at an annual revenue of Rs. 18,125/ on tender system on 28-2-67 from the Sub-Divisional Officer North Lakhimpur, could question the right of the State Govern­ment to settle the fishery in question much earlier, namely on 12-1-67, with the opposite party No. 4 Dibakar Morane for the same period at an annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 in exercise of their powers under Rule 12 or the Fishery Rules. (2) Rule 12 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". (3) It may be seen from the above rule that if the State Government desires to settle the fishery direct, they have got full and abso­lute power to do so without resort to following the normal system of sale by auction or adopt­ing the tender system. In the instant case the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 4 ad applied for direct settlement to the State Government. The State Government on a con­sideration of these applications and after calling for a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, decided to settle the fishery with the opposite party No. 4. In our opinion, as the State Government has the full power to effect a settle­ment under Rule 12 directly with the party, it is not open to any one to question the validity of the action taken in exercise of that power. (4) Several arguments were advanced by Dr. In our opinion, as the State Government has the full power to effect a settle­ment under Rule 12 directly with the party, it is not open to any one to question the validity of the action taken in exercise of that power. (4) Several arguments were advanced by Dr. Medhi, the learned counsel for the peti­tioner, in support of his petition, one of which is that the Annexure III' to the petition, the order of the State Government issued on 25-1-67 referred to above, settling the fishery with the opposite party No. 4, which appears at p. 35 of, the Paper Book, is not a valid order at all, that it is not properly authenticated and in any case it has not been duly communicated to opposite party No. 4, without which it is defec­tive. We do not see anything in Rule 12 to support this contention. The order, which ap­pears at page 35 of the Paper Book, purports to be issued in the name of the Governor. It is also signed by the Under-Secretary, Veterinary Department, Fishery Branch, Government of Assam and is apparently passed in exercise of the power conferred on the Under-Secretary under the rules of executive business framed by the Governor in pursuance of the power given under the Articles of the Constitution. As Dr. Medhi insisted on the production of the orders passed in the case, we had to send for the Secretariat file and we noticed from that file that the Minister directly passed the order in question on 12-1-1967. (5) It is contended that this order of the Minister does not conform to the requirements of the rules. But this argument is not under­stood. It is common knowledge that when a decision has to be taken, it is taken by the Minister, or the competent authority as the case may be, on the file, and that decision takes shape in the form of an order incorporating that decision, and it is that order that is found at page 35 of the paper book. This order says that the Governor of Assam is pleased to settle Dhulidowar Mahara Fishery directly with Shri Dibakar Morang-a plains tribal as a special case, for a period of three years from 1-4-67 to 31-3-70 at an annual revenue of Rs. 12,000. This order says that the Governor of Assam is pleased to settle Dhulidowar Mahara Fishery directly with Shri Dibakar Morang-a plains tribal as a special case, for a period of three years from 1-4-67 to 31-3-70 at an annual revenue of Rs. 12,000. We are satisfied that this order is a valid order and conforms to the Articles of the Constitution and is an effective order under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. (6) Another argument advanced by Dr. Medhi is that as a number of persons had appli­ed for a direct settlement of the fishery to the State Government, there is a kind of lis between these applicants and that being the case, the disposal of these applications must be done judicially and the officer concerned must be deemed to be acting judicially, and as the re­quirements of judicial disposal of a matter are not complied with in this case, the order must be held to be bad. We are not impressed with this argument at all. The fishery is the Govern­ment property. It is in the control and manage­ment of the Government. Fishery rules give power to the State Government to settle the fishery directly and they have done so. It is not understood how there could be a lis or litigation or averment and counter-averment, which re­quire a decision and which decision might attract the incidents of judicial procedure. This is purely an administrative act done by way of selecting a person, whom the Government! considered to be the most suitable in their opinion and their decision also cannot be ques­tioned by anybody else. Moreover, our atten­tion has not been drawn to any set of rules or procedure governing the settlement, which, according to Dr. Medhi, could be said to have been violated. (7) Another contention of Dr. Medhi if that the Government acted mala fide. We could not countenance this argument for the simple reason that there is no specific plea in the peti­tion in this respect. A charge of mala fide against a responsible body like a Government has got to be couched in specific details and supported by particulars in the petition. All this not being there, it would be unfair to raise this plea now, which is not raised in the peti­tion. A charge of mala fide against a responsible body like a Government has got to be couched in specific details and supported by particulars in the petition. All this not being there, it would be unfair to raise this plea now, which is not raised in the peti­tion. (8) The other argument that is sought to be advanced is on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had made some report sub­sequent to the order made by the State Govern­ment, which ran counter to the report earlier made by him, on which the order of the State Government was passed. We consider that any examination of these reports would be totally outside the scope of this petition and irrelevant for determining the question whether the State Government acted within its jurisdiction by directing settlement of the fishery with the opposite party No. 4 on 12-1-1967. (9) Dr. Medhi then urges that the Sub-Divisional Officer's order of settlement had been cancelled and it should not have been done. The argument is not understood. By 12-1-67 the fishery had already been settled directly by the State Government with opposite party No. 4. Thus the whole thing had been finalised and done in exercise of the powers of the Govern­ment under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. There was thus no fishery thereafter to be settled, and if the Sub-Divisional Officer attempted to do so, without regard and respect for the orders of the Government, he did so at his risk. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter any longer, there being no fishery available for settlement. There is, there­fore, no substance in this argument. (10) Dr. Medhi, as a last resort, questioned the vires of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. But we see no such plea in his petition. Apart from it, having proceeded on the footing that R. 12 is perfectly valid, there is no justification at all for Dr. Medhi now to question the vires of the rule. (10) Dr. Medhi, as a last resort, questioned the vires of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. But we see no such plea in his petition. Apart from it, having proceeded on the footing that R. 12 is perfectly valid, there is no justification at all for Dr. Medhi now to question the vires of the rule. We may, however, in this connection refer to the case of Ganga Ram Das v. Tezpur Kaibarta Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 377 , cited by Mr Ghose, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded on the footing that Rule 1.2 of the Fishery Rules specifically empowers the State Government to settle the fishery rights otherwise than by sale, and there is no conflict at all between the provi­sions of Sec. 16 of the Assam Land and Reve­nue Regulation 1 of 1886, and Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, and that the question of the power of the State Government really turns on the construction of Rule 12 and no question of the intra vires or the ultra vires character of the rule vis-a-vis Section 16, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation can arise in disposing of that question. We do not consider, however, that any further examination of this question is called for (11) In the result, we consider that there is no substance in this petition, which merits our interference in exercise of our extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed and, the rule is discharged. We. however, make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.