JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is directed against an order dated May 30. 1973 made in Civil Order No. 839 (W) of 1973 by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. By the said order his Lordship dismissed an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India without issuing a rule. The appellants, a Fishermens' co-operative Society contended that about 23 years ago the predecessors of the present members of the Society had settled on the Khasmahal lands situated within Mouza Falta village Falta 24 pargans with the object of catching fish from the chanels, tanks, bills and other watery areas of the said mouza for their maintenance and livelihood. It has further been contended that the said persons have improved the area by cutting and clearing the jungles and they were and are fishermen by caste and profession. 2. THE Co-operative Society, it has been alleged, was formed as for back as 1950 at the initiative of the state government and the same is also a registered one. In the petition used as grounds of the motion it has further been contended that the Co-operative Society and its members were given assurances to settle the jheel for their economic re-habilitation and in fact the families of the members of the Society in question who were considered to be refugees were granted house building loans for construction of their houses. In the petition, the petitioners have also given some particulars about the accommodations they have received from the directorate of Fisheries and it has further been averred that their families were rehabilitated in the lands of all Falta Fort and the jheel which encircles the colony and the same was leased out to the Society for five years at an annual economic rent of rs. 301/- in 1950 and since then the society is in possession of the same. It has further been alleged that at all material times, the petitioner Society was in possession of the jheel in question on payment of rent or charges and the last of such settlement i. e. for the year 1377 B. S. was made pursuant to a tender notice dated February 24, 1970 for a sum of Rs. 502/ -. It has further been alleged that at all material times, the petitioner Society was in possession of the jheel in question on payment of rent or charges and the last of such settlement i. e. for the year 1377 B. S. was made pursuant to a tender notice dated February 24, 1970 for a sum of Rs. 502/ -. It appears that thereafter on March 16, 1973 a notice was issued for holding an open auction of the jheel in question and pursuant to the said notice the petitioner Society along with Respondent No. 8 filed their tenders. As the tender of the said respondent No. 8 was highest, his bid was referred to that of the petitioner society. Against such order, the petitioner-Society moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed in the manner stated hereinbefore. It appears that in the petition it has been contended that there was a promise given to the petitioner Society by the Government and because of such promise the jheel in question should have been settled with them. Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee while dismissing the application held that no prima facie case was made out for the issue of a Rule and in support of the contentions made hereinbefore, there is no averment in the petition to the effect that on the basis of the promise as mentioned hereinbefore the petitioner-society has acted or taken steps to the detriment of their interest. His Lordship further found that the settlement of the nature which Wits involved in the proceedings was made under the provisions of the West Bengal government Estates Manual which has no statutory force and therefore no writ was available to the petitioner. The said manual is nothing but a reproduction of departmental instructions for the guidance of the Officers of the government. Apparently His Lordship made such determination on the basis of the case of Bidyadhari Spill Matsyajibi samabaya Samity Ltd. v. State of West bengal, reported in 65 C. W. N. 685 a. I. R. (1961) Calcutta 214. The view expressed in the said case, it may be mentioned incidentally, has also been subsequently accepted in the case of lalgola Padma Fisherman's Co-operative society v. State of West Bengal, a decision of D. Pal J. reported in 78 C. W. N. 386. In this appeal against the said order of rejection, Mr. The view expressed in the said case, it may be mentioned incidentally, has also been subsequently accepted in the case of lalgola Padma Fisherman's Co-operative society v. State of West Bengal, a decision of D. Pal J. reported in 78 C. W. N. 386. In this appeal against the said order of rejection, Mr. Basu, the learned advocate for the appellants has contended relying on the cases of Union of india v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies, reported in A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 718 and a still later decision in the case of century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality, reported in a. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1021 that from the proceedings and records as disclosed it is apparent that a promise was made by the appropriate authorities to settle the jheel in question with the Society and because of such promise and also because of the fact that the Respondent No. 8 was neither a fisherman nor a resident of the locality, the appropriate authorities had acted illegally, with material irregularity, arbitrarily and in capricious use of their jurisdiction and authority in having the tender notice dated 16th March, 1973 issued. It has further been alleged that the settlement of the jheel in question with the Respondent No. 8, pursuant to the said invalid, irregular and Void notice, was improper and as such, such settlement has not given any authority to the Respondent No. 8 to hold and use the jheel in question. Mr. Basu, on a consideration of the tender notice, the purported promise in Annexure "k" dated 7th March, 1972 and the recommendations contained in Annexure "a" to his clients' Affidavit-in-reply which is a Memo dated 11th April, 1973 from the Inspector of Co-operative societies, to the Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies, contended that once the jheel in question was settled with the petitioner Society, the same should have been settled with them on all subsequent years irrespective of the fact whether the co-operative Society has made their bid or not. He further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case no tender was required to be called for the purpose of settling the jheel in question. In short his submissions were that his clients, because of the earlier settlements, acquired a right and such right could not be interfered with by calling fresh tender for the auction of the jheel. In short his submissions were that his clients, because of the earlier settlements, acquired a right and such right could not be interfered with by calling fresh tender for the auction of the jheel. He also argued that whether or not his clients have given a bid or offered any amount for the settlement of the jheel in question, the appropriate authorities, who are respondents herein should have settled the same with them. In fact he argued that payment of money or amount even equal to the reserve price for the settlement of the fishery was immaterial in the instant case. 3. THE contentions before us particulars whereof have been given hereinbefore, can hardly be accepted in particular, we do not agree with mr. Basu that for the purpose of settling the jheel in question, either no tender was required to be called, or his clients were entitled to have the settlement of the jheel even if they had given a tender below the reserve price and even much below the highest offer which was received or even if such offer was ridiculously low. We cannot further agree with Mr. Basu that even if his clients are the lowest tenderer, the jheel should have been settled with them ignoring the offer an given by the highest tenderer viz. Respondent No. 8. 4. ON the question of the settlement of the jheel in the instant case we find that such settlement in governed by the West Bengal Government estates Manual which deals with principles, policy and procedure for khas management of "government Estates". We find that the term "government estates" in the said Manual is used to mean estates under the direct management of Government, whether they are the properties of the Government or are the estates of the private individuals brought under the direct management of the Government. Agreeing with the decisions in the case of Bidyadhari spill Matsajibi Samabaya Samity Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (supra) and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Lalgola Padma Fishermen cooperative Society v. State of West Bengal (supra) we hold that the said Estate! manual only contains Executive orders made by the Government in respect of the administration of its own properties and cannot be considered as statutory rules and as such orders made or steps taken thereunder are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution! manual only contains Executive orders made by the Government in respect of the administration of its own properties and cannot be considered as statutory rules and as such orders made or steps taken thereunder are not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution! of India. Government can own property and deal with it in any manner which is permissible under the law. If there is any statute which imposes a restriction or if there are any statutory Rules which compel a certain procedure to be followed, that is another matter, and government would have to follow it. In the circumstances of the present case we also hold that the executive order complained of cannot be considered as a statutory rule and violation, if any, of the same would not give rise to a legal right which can be agitated in an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The other contention of Mr. Basu viz. the promise on the basis of which his clients have alleged to have acted is also of no substance as in the petition of motion there is no averment to the affect that on the basis of the purported representations made by the Government to the effect that the "jheel" would be settled with the petitioners, they have acted upon such representations and that too to the detriment of their interest and to their prejudice. Unless such statement is available, the case of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (supra) and that of Century Spinning and Manufacturing co. v. Ulhasnagar Municipality (supra)would have no application. Having realised the difficulty in the matter of establishing any statutory right since the West Bengal Government Estates manual has no statutory force but contains only executive instructions, mr. Basu relying on the aforementioned two judgments of the Supreme Court of India in addition to the case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India reported in a. I. R. 1970 S. C. 150 and also the case of robertson v. Minister of Pensions reported in (1948) 2 All E. R. 767 submitted that such executive orders or instructions as are involved in the instant case, even though the said Manual had no statutory force, because of the non-fulfilment of the promise and also because the settlement in the instant case was made with a non fishermen, was not a bonafide one. He contended further that since the petitioner Co-operative society in the instant case was composed of Fishermen, they should have been preferred in settling the jheel to a non-fishermen viz., Respondent No. 8. In our opinion these arguments of Mr. Basu, in view of the findings as made hereinbefore and also because of the fact that no such absolute right of settlement has been given to fishermen in the matter of settlement, are of no substance. The term preference as mentioned in Rule 273 of the Manual, which lays down the mode of settlement as also in its ordinary sense would mean that such preference may be given or exercised when other things are equal or nearly equal. In the instant case the offer of the respondent No. 8 was admittedly much higher than that of the petitioner society and as such conditions were not equal or nearly equal and so the petitioner Society was not entitled to any preference. If the arguments as advanced by Mr. Basu on the question of preferring a fishermen or a Fishermens' cooperative Society to the Respondent no. 8, who admittedly was the highest bidder and non-fishermen in all circumstances, is accepted then that would frustrate not only the provisions of the manual but would also create a bad precedent and such practice would be contrary to all rules of settlement through auction. Apart from these submissions, mr. Basu also submitted on the question of non traverce by the appearing respondents in the Rule and contended that since the allegations in the petition have not been duly dealt with, traversed or contradicted by them, and in effect! admitted by them, the impugned order should not have been made following the principles as laid down in the cases of Mintu Bhakta v. State of West Bengal, a. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2132 and Beni Madhab shaw. v. State of West Bengal, A. I. R 1973 s. C. 2455. We are unable to accept such submissions of Mr. Basu in the facts and circumstances of the present case as even without looking into the unhappy affidavit as has been filed by the appearing respondents in the proceedings or even without such affidavit. We feel that findings of the learned Judge are justified. We are unable to accept such submissions of Mr. Basu in the facts and circumstances of the present case as even without looking into the unhappy affidavit as has been filed by the appearing respondents in the proceedings or even without such affidavit. We feel that findings of the learned Judge are justified. Lastly, relying on the case of the D. F. O. Kheri v. Ram Senhei Singh reported in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 205, Mr. Basu submitted that since the impugned settlement in the instant case was a malafide and illegal one as the same was made contrary to the assurances as given and furthermore the settlement was made with a non fisherman, the same should be declared as improper and void. In view of our findings hereinbefore, we feel that the said case has also no application whatsoever since the petitioner Society has neither been able to establish malafides nor have they succeeded in establishing that only fishermen should ordinarily be preferred in the matter of settlement of fisheries by the State. In view of the above, all the contentions raised by Mr. Basu fail and as such the appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs.