Judgement PATHAK, J. :- This application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of Mandamus or a writ of like nature directing the Respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order dated 20-8-1967 issued by the Government and also for a writ of Certiorari or a writ of like nature for cancelling the Governments order settling the Dibru Reserve Fishery Mahal No. 3 for 1971-74 with Respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society constituted by members belonging to the scheduled caste. The Dibru Reserve Fishery Mahal No. 3 was settled with Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., respondent No. 5, for the previous period ending on 15th May, 1971. Both the Petitioner, Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd. and the Respondent No. 5. Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. applied to the State Government on 6-3-1971 and 9-3-1971 respectively for direct settlement of the said fishery Mahal for a period of 3 years from 16-8-1971 to 15-5-1974. 3. By Memo No FOR 146/67/184 dated 11th August, 1971 the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department, informed the Conservator of Forest, Upper Assam Circle. Jorhat that the Governor of Assam was pleased to order direct settlement of Dibru Fishery Mahal No. 3 under Dibrugarh Division with M/s. Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd.. Tinsukia for the term 1971-74 (from 16th August, 1971 to 15th May, 1974) at Rs. 1,75,000/- on usual terms and conditions. A copy of the Memo was also forwarded to the Chairman of the Petitioner Society. 4. Before the petitioner could take necessary steps for depositing security money and performing other formalities in pursuance of the aforesaid order of settlement made in its favour, the petitioner received a copy of another order vide Memo No. FOR. 146/67/190 dated 20-8-1971 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department, whereby the Conservator of Forests was informed that the Governor of Assam was pleased to cancel the order issued vide Government letter No. For. 146/67/184 dated 11-8-1971 settling the fishery in question with the Petitioner Society. Thereafter on enquiry the petitioner came to learn that the fishery in question had been settled with Respondent No. 5 for the said period at Rs. 1,75,000/- on the very same day on which the settlement made with the petitioner was cancelled. 146/67/184 dated 11-8-1971 settling the fishery in question with the Petitioner Society. Thereafter on enquiry the petitioner came to learn that the fishery in question had been settled with Respondent No. 5 for the said period at Rs. 1,75,000/- on the very same day on which the settlement made with the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner states that even though it applied for certified copy of the order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5, it was not supplied with the same. 5. In the circumstances the petitioner has filed this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ as stated above. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department has been filed on behalf of the State Government in the case. 7. It has been stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 applied on 6-3-1971 and 9-3-1971 respectively for direct settlement of the Fishery in question for the period from 16-8-1971 to 15-5-1974. That both the petitions were considered by the Government in a Cabinet meeting held on 19-7-1971, wherein the Deponent, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department was also present at the time of deliberations. That the Cabinet meeting decided that the Dibru Reserve Forest Mahal No. 3 should be settled directly with M/s. Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. at a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the whole period ending 15-5-1974. That the Respondent No. 5 in its petition for direct settlement offered the same amount as had been offered by it in the previous term, i.e. Rs. 1,31,250/-, while the petitioner in its petition for direct settlement offered the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. That it was decided in the Cabinet meeting that the prayer of Respondent No. 5, M/s. Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. in respect of the loss sustained by it during the previous term should be taken into consideration and the settlement should be made with it, but at the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. It has further been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that in the process of recording and communication of this decision, an accidental error crept in and instead of recording the name of Respondent No. 5, Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. the name of Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd. was put in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. 1,75,000/-. It has further been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that in the process of recording and communication of this decision, an accidental error crept in and instead of recording the name of Respondent No. 5, Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. the name of Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd. was put in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. The minutes of the Cabinet meeting were forwarded by the Political Department to the Forest Department and the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Forest Department taking this to be a correctly recorded decision, communicated the order to the Conservator of Forests, Upper Assam Circle, Jorhat on 11-8-1971 giving direct settlement to the petitioner and the petition of Respondent No. 5 was separately rejected. This error came to the notice of the Secretary on 18th August, 1971. He immediately took necessary steps to correct the same and the Cabinet also took a decision on 19th August, 1971 to rectify the error in that decision as recorded and the Political Department accordingly issued a corrigendum correcting the earlier record and incorporated the name of M/s. Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. in place of the petitioner. It was stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that there was no Government decision to settle the Fishery Mahal with the petitioner, that the communication of the order was purely a mistake of fact. These facts have been sworn to be true to the knowledge and information derived from records by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Forest Department 8. Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Forest Department reads as follows :- "FOR. 245/71. Item 9- Settlement of Dibru Reserve Fishery under the Forest Department. The Cabinet considered the Memorandum submitted by the Forest Department and decided to make direct settlement of the Dibru Reserve Fishery with M/s. Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Ltd. for the period ending 15-5-1974 at a total bid of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the whole period". 9. Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition is as follows :- "CORRIGENDUM POLITICAL (A) DEPARTMENT No. PLA.11/71 Dated Shillong the 20th August, 1971. In serial No. FOR.246/71 of the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19th July, 1971 please read "M/s. Rangagorah Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd." in place of "M/s. Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Limited". Sd. N. K. Rustomji Chief Secretary to the Govt. In serial No. FOR.246/71 of the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19th July, 1971 please read "M/s. Rangagorah Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd." in place of "M/s. Tinsukia Min Samabai Samity Limited". Sd. N. K. Rustomji Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam". Copies of this corrigendum were sent to all Ministers, all Ministers of State, all Deputy Ministers, Secretary to the Governor of Assam and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Forest Department. 10. On consideration of the affidavit-in-opposition in the instant case there is no doubt that the Government in a Cabinet meeting held on 19-7-1971 decided to settle the Fishery Mahal in question with Respondent No. 5, M/s. Rangagora Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. at a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the whole period ending 15-5-1974 and in the process of recording the minutes of the Cabinet meeting, due to accidental mistake the name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in place of Respondent No. 5 and on that basis Memo No. FOR. 146/67/184 dated 11th August, 1971 was issued. As soon as the mistake in the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting was detected, it was corrected by the corrigendum, Annexure B. to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Secretary as quoted above and accordingly Memo No. FOR.146/67/190 dated 20-8-1971 was issued to the Conservator of Forests. We have carefully gone through the petition and the affidavits filed in the case. There is no definite allegation of mala fide on the part of the Government in correcting the mistake and there is also no material on record to find that the correction of the mistake was male fide. On the other hand the materials on record clearly show that the decision in the Cabinet meeting was to settle the fishery with Respondent No. 5, but in recording the minutes of the Cabinet meeting inadvertently a mistake crept in and as soon as the mistake was discovered it was corrected by issuing the corrigendum. On consideration of the materials on record we find that there was no settlement in fact in favour of the petitioner. The communication regarding the settlement with the Petitioner was based on a mistake which crept in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. A bona fide mistake may be corrected by the appropriate authority when discovered. On consideration of the materials on record we find that there was no settlement in fact in favour of the petitioner. The communication regarding the settlement with the Petitioner was based on a mistake which crept in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. A bona fide mistake may be corrected by the appropriate authority when discovered. Since the Cabinet meeting did not decide to settle the fishery with the Petitioner and the communication made to it was based on a bona fide mistake, there is no question of violation of the principles of natural justice while correcting the mistake in the minutes and issuing an order in accordance with the corrected minutes of the Cabinet decision. 11. In our considered opinion the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired any right by the mistaken order communicated to it and no right can really be founded on a bona fide mistake. 12. In the circumstances we hold that the Memo No.FOR. 146/67/184-A dated 11-8-1971 which was communicated to the petitioner under mistake could not create any right in the petitioner for which it may be entitled to a writ as prayed for. The mistake has since been corrected by the appropriate authority and order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5, has been issued accordingly. Hence there is no ground for quashing the order of settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5. 13. In the result we find that this petition has no substance and is rejected but without costs. 14. BAHARUL ISLAM, J. :- I agree. Petition rejected.