B. L. Hansaria, J.- Tezpur has been endowed with scenic beauty. It has three lakes skirting it and this part of the town is its pride. Padum Pukhuri is a part of the three lakes and it is a great appeal for the tourists also. This Pukhuri is however, being leased out for the purpose of fishing since 1961. This might have been done to augment the revenue of the Municipal Board. Respondent No 2, Mahendra Chandra, has been fortunate in obta­ining the lease ever since 1961. It thus seems that a monopoly right has been created in favour of respondent No. 2 in this regard. Some other persons tried to break the monopoly and the petiti­oner is one of them. Having known that the settlement of the tank as a fishery has been made with respondent No. 2 since long the petitioner came forward to obtain the lease and offered a sum of Rs. 20,551.00 as annual revenue. This was on 13.2.1984. The Municipal Board, however, in its meeting held on 28.2.1984 decided to extend the period of respondent No. 2 for a further period of 10 years at an annual sum of Rs, 10,000.00. This settlement has been challenged in this application under Article 226 of the Consti­tution of India. 2. Shri Mahanta appearing for the petitioner has first urged that the tank in question could not have been settled as a fishery and that too without there being any Rules to guide the Muni­cipal Board as to how to grant the lease. Though it is fairly conceded by Shri Mahanta that the tank vests in the Municipa­lity because of what has been stated in section 62 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, hereinafter the Act. It is contended by the learned counsel that because of the provisions contained in section 60(7) of the Act all that the Board could have done was to maintain the tank as deemed fit by it. It is further urged by Shii Mahanta that wherever the Government wanted to give power of settlement to a Municipal Board, Rules for the same were framed and in this regard our attention has been invited to the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam. 3. It is further urged by Shii Mahanta that wherever the Government wanted to give power of settlement to a Municipal Board, Rules for the same were framed and in this regard our attention has been invited to the Rules for Procedure for the Sale of Pounds and Markets by Municipal Boards and Town Committees in Assam. 3. Shri Sarma appearing for the Municipal Board contends that as the tank vests in the Board and is therefore to be regarded as Board's property, no limitation, regarding the use of tank as a fishery can be imposed and the Board cannot be debarred from leasing out the same as a fishery. As presently advised, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid provisions of the Act do not impose any limitation to use the tank vesting in the Municipality as a fishery if the same is deemed necessary by the Board to earn revenue. Of course, while doing so it has to see that it acts fairly while granting lease treating the tank as a fishery and no undue favour is shown to any person. 4. As no rules have been framed in this regard, we are of the opinion that it would be only fair and proper if public at large are made known that a particular tank shall be leased out as a fishery and giving the public an opportunity of submitting their tenders for obtaining lease. As this procedure has not been followed in the present case and as respondent No. 2 has been picked up for the purpose of granting lease, and that too for a period as high as 10 years and that too repeatedly, we are of the opinion that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained. We would, therefore, direct the Municipal Board to invite fresh tenders for the fishery in question and the­reafter grant settlement in accordance with the principles of fairness which demands that in these matters the highest tenderer has to be preferred if there be nothing adverse against him. In the present case, as already noted the offer of the petitioner was of Rs. 20,551.00 whereas the settlement was made for a sum of Rs. 10.000/-. It may be that this was done because respondent No. 2 has kept the lake "clean and appealing to the public". In the present case, as already noted the offer of the petitioner was of Rs. 20,551.00 whereas the settlement was made for a sum of Rs. 10.000/-. It may be that this was done because respondent No. 2 has kept the lake "clean and appealing to the public". Even so the difference in the two sums is quite large and it is not know if settlement would have been made with the petitioner, he would not have kept the tank clean and appealing to the public. As Padum Pukhuri is also a tourist spot, it would be open to the Municipal Board to add a condition in the lease that the person getting the lease shall maintain the lake 'clean and appealing to the public*, failure of which may invite c mediation of the lease. 5. In the result, we dispose of the present application directing the Municipal Board to limit the period of lease of respondent No. 2 upto March, 1990 and to give public notice thereafter inviting tenders and to settle the tank in the light of the observations made above. 6. Before parting we may state that we have regarded the term of settlement given in the present case which is 10 years is rather long and it would be in the fitness of things if the period of settlement is confined to three years. J. Sangraa. J.- I agree.