Hansaria, J.:- This forensic fight relates to No. 4/80 Dhar Jinjiram Fishery of Goalpara Sub-Division. The petitioner was one of the tenders and had offered a sum of Fs. 1,825'25 per year, whereas tie tender of respondent Nc.3 was for Rs. 5,525/- Despite the respondent No. 3 being the highest tender, settle­ment was provisionally given to the petitioner by the S.D.O. Goalpara, though at the tendered amount of respondent No. 3. On appeal being preferred, this settlement order has been set aside because according to the learned Assam Board of Revenue the case of the petitioner is not covered by Rule 13(c) or 13(d) of the Rules made for settlement of fisheries, hereinafter the Fishery Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, who is a Co­operative Society of 100% actual fishermen, has approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 2. To appreciate the contentions advanced by Shri Sharma we have to read sub-rules (a) to (d) of Rules 13. "(a) With the proper approval of the State Government not more than 60 percent of Fisheries in a Sub-Division available for settlement in a year shall be selected for sale under tender system only with the Co-operative Fishery Societies formed with 100 per cent share-holders from members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Caste of the State and/or Mainal Community of the District of Cachar and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies' Act 1949. Settlement of all such fisheries tenders of which have been accepted under Rule 5 shall be with the highest tender. (b) The remaining fisheries in the Sub-division available in that year under tender system of sale, shall remain open for settlement to all communities including Co-oper­ative Societies as referred to in sub-rule (a) above. (c) A Co-operative Fishery Society formed by members of actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes/Mainal Community/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, shall be given option to accept settlement of Fisheries of the category as mentioned in sub-rule (b) above at the highest tender, provided that their tender is within 7 per cent of the highest tender. (d) When the tenders for fisheries falling within the cate­gory referred to in sub-rule (b) above are below 7 per cent of the highest tender (i) Co-operative Societies as stated in sub-rule (c) above, (ii) Individual members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Mainal Community, (iii) individual members of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who may offer tenders not less than 60 per cent of the highest tender may be given option to accept settlement of the fisheries at highest tender, in order of preference stated above subject to suitability of the tenders." 3. Admittedly, the fishery at hand is not covered by the sub-rule (a). The claim of the petitioner is, however, founded on sub-rule (b) inasmuch as it is apparent that the case is not covered by sub-rule (c) because the petitioner's tender was only for Rs. 1,825.25, whereas the highest tender was for Rs. 5,525/- and as such the tender cannot be said to be "within 7 percent of the highest tender." This much is not in dispute, nay, it is indisputable. Shri Sharma, however, contends that the case of the Society is covered by sub-rule (d) as according to him that part of this sub-rule which speaks of the tender being ''not less than 60 per cent of the highest tender" does not apply in case of a Co-operative Society but is confined to the tenders of individual members of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. This submission has been advanced keeping in view the comma which has appeared in sub-rule (d) after the second category men­tioned in the sub-rule, namely "Individual members of the actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Mainal Community." We may however remember that "(g) rammar and punctuation are hapless victims of the pace of life" as stated in State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949 ; and the approach in such a matter without going by commas has to be to discover the true meaning" having regard to the substance of the matter as it emerges from the object and purpose of the Act, the context in which the expression is used and the cons­equences necessarily following upon the acceptance of any parti­cular interpretation [ See para 5 of the judgment ]. 4. 4. If the submission of the learned counsel were to be accepted that would mean that a Co-operative Society could claim consideration under sub-rule (d) despite its tender being for below the limit of 60 per cent, indeed, even if it has given a token tender was say Rs.1/- This interpretation cannot be accepted when it is remembered that option under sub-rule (c) and (d) was being given in the 40 per cent non-reserved fisheries. Any other view would amount to giving option to the Co-operative Societies in virtually all the fisheries, because we may well presume that such a Society would be one of the tenders in practically all such settlements. The result would be that instead of 60% reser­vation, the percentage of reservation would come to 100%, which would be against the whole tenor of Rule 13. This apart, the interpretation sought to be put by the learned counsel would not give meaning to this sub-rule, as if we were to agree that the requirement of the tender being "not less than 60 per cent of the highest tender" was not to apply because of the afore­said comma, what has followed these words in the sub-rules namely "may be given option", would also not apply to the tender of a Co-operative Society as there is no other punctua­tion in between these two expressions. This would render the sub-rule lame and absolutely non-applicable to the first two cate­gories. Apparently such a meaning cannot be countenanced. 5. To fortify his submission Shri Sharma has, however, referred to the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967, whose Rule 11 dealing with preference to listed classes has not put any lower limit when the tender is below 92 per cent of the recognised highest offer. While inter­preting the Rules at hand we cannot import the purport of some other rules. Then, it has to be remembered that in the Forest Coupes and Mahals Rules there is no provision for Co-Operative Societies as is to be found in Rule 13(a) of the Fishery Rules. As such, the rule making authority might have deemed it fit in the Forest Coupes and Mahals Rules to put no lower limit for the tenders of listed classes; but the position under the Fishery Rules is entirely different. 6. As such, the rule making authority might have deemed it fit in the Forest Coupes and Mahals Rules to put no lower limit for the tenders of listed classes; but the position under the Fishery Rules is entirely different. 6. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the case of the petitioner is not covered by either Rule 13 (c) or (d) of the Rules and as such the learned Assam Board of Revenue committed no error of law in setting aside the order of settlement.