JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Mazid has filed this petition challenging the order of the Director. Fishery, Government of Rajasthan, Annexure-5 Dated 19-2-1982 which reads as under:- 2. The petitioner's case: is that the offices of Bandh, Nigo Mai Nadi, falls in the category of 'B' Class and an, auction was conducted in pursuance of notice issued, by the respondents. The petitioner was the highest bidder and yet he is unable to get the contract. His bid was Rs. 10,000/- Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared through Mr. M.I. Khan, Govt. Advocate. Shri Hamid Ali who claims to be an old contractor, and having subsisting lease of this Band and river has also contested this writ petition. 3. The short point involved in the case is whether the Bandh Nigo Mai Nadi, which was classified as 'B' Class by the Government itself and put to auction in December, 1981 was not a 'B' Class Band and whether the contention of respondents that it was a 'C' Class Bandh was liable to be given for five years, according to Rule 5(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 are correct. 4. Undoubtedly the respondent No. 3 was accepted as a lease-holder for the period of five years commencing from 1979-80 and the agreement was entered into in the prescribed Form 3-A of the rules. In support of this Annexure-5, itself makes a mention to it. The Learned Government Advocate has shown the original letters and lease deed which are for five years. However, according to Rule 5(1)(c) the lease can be given from year to year and the lease period is five years. The period during these five years can be extended from year to year without any fresh auction. 5. Section 5, sub-Clause (C) reads as under: "(C) Specified 'C' Class water suitable for fish culture may be leased out by open auction for a period of one year in the initial stage, and the period may be extended for a period not exceeding one year at a time. Subject, however to the condition that the total period of lease shall not exceed five years in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified in form No. 3A appended to these rules." 6. Subject, however to the condition that the total period of lease shall not exceed five years in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified in form No. 3A appended to these rules." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that firstly it was not a 'C' Class water as the income of it was more than 5,000/- rupees and not below 5,000/- rupees. He pointed out that in the year 1979-80, the income was 6,600 rupees. It is not in dispute that in 1977-78, according to the auction notice of 1980-81, showed to me by the petitioner, the income has been shown as Rs. 3,400/- and in 1978-79, it was Rs. 4,700/- 7. Undoubtedly in 1979-80, the auction bid of the respondent No. 3 was Rs. 6,000/-. However as per scheme of sub-Clause (c), auction is to be held only once and then the lease can continue for five years. That being so, only logical meaning to be given for categorisation of water into classes, is that earlier income of the year of auction can be looked into. That being so, since in 1977-78 the income was Rs. 3499/-, and in 1978-79 the income was Rs. 4,700/-. It was below Rs. 5,000/- when the water was put to auction in 1979-80. Undoubtedly it was of 'C' Class. 8. If the clause (C) of Rule 5 is to be given its full meaning it means that the water once auctioned can be continued to lease without auction for a period of five years. The logical conclusion, which can be arrived from this is that the classification is to be made before five years from (sic) commences and once a lease is given for five years, the classification cannot be changed in- between. The object is that as the contractor would invest money for development purposes, only if he is normally assured of a five years permit, subject to fulfilling the conditions of the agreement. 9. In view of the above, I am convinced that the disputed water known as Band Nigo Mai Nandi was in 'C' Class in the relevant year 1979-80 when respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder and whose bid was accepted for five years at the rate of Rs. 6,600/- per year. 10. In view of this, I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Khan, learned Govt. 6,600/- per year. 10. In view of this, I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Khan, learned Govt. Advocate that the categorisation of this water in 'B' Class and the auctions were done by mistake of fact by the department. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his bid was the highest and therefore, he has got a right to get the lease. Admittedly the Competent Authority has not accepted the bid and therefore, no legal right has been created. 12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that though the mistake committed by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be taken note of seriously by the department and appropriate action is called for against the officers, who have put the petitioner to harassment, yet since the rights of respondent No. 3 for a period of five years are existing in law, no writ can be issued to direct the respondent. Nos. 1 and 2 to accept the bid. 13. The result is that this writ petition is dismissed. But respondents Nos. 1 and 2 would pay the cost of Rs. 200/- to the petitioner, because it is on account of their admitted mistake that the auction was made for which the petitioner was required to invest the money and also to undergo this litigation. 14. The writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******