Order The prayer in this writ application is for quashing the order dated 4.9.1990 (Annexure5) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West) (respondent no.2) in Revision Misc. Case No. 41 of 1990-91 arising out of Revision Misc. Case No.20 and 21 of 1989-90 whereby the respondent no.2 has held that the settlement of two tanks namely Digbarada tank and Khumar (Kusmi) tank in favour of respondent no.8 to be valid and direction was issued, to respondent no.6 (Anchal Adhikari Baharagora) to act, accordingly. 2. The relevant facts are these. 3. The petitioner is a registered fishermen's Co-operative Society. The respondent no.8 is also a registered fishermen's Society. These societies have been operating in Baharagora Sub-Division of Singhbhum (East) district, Baharagora and Borsole Thana. It appears that the area of operation of these societies had been defined. by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent no. 7) vide letter no. 426 dated 8.4.1983 (Annexure-1) according to which the area of operation of the petitioner' society has been limited within territorial jurisdiction of Barsole Police Station while the area of operation of the respondent-8 has been fixed within the territorial jurisdiction of Baharagora Police Station. 4. The Digbarada tank and the Khamar (Khushmi) tank are water reserviors used mainly for fisheries purpose. The said tanks are settled by the State of Bihar according to the Sairat settlement policy and procedure of the State Government. According to the petitioner, as per the policy, the settlement has to be made with Co-operative Societies operating in the area in preference to others on the Society on Reserve Jama fixed by the Government. It appears that for settlement of these two tanks Anchal Adhikari, Baharagora, respondent no.6 initiated Sairat case nos. 35 and 36 of 1989-90. The respondent nos.6 and 7 recommended for settlement of the aforesaid tanks on Reserve .lama with respondent no. 8. The settlement was ultimately approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatsila (respondent no, 5) on 31.6.1989 but before the settlement was approved, respondent no.7 informed respondent no.6 vide his letter dated 26.5.1989 (Annexure-2) that as the tanks fell within area of operation of the petitioner the earlier recommendation be revoked and the Sairat settled with the petitioner. The Director of Fisheries, Government of Bihar vide his letter no. 1379 dated 11.8.1987 (Annexure-3) requested the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum for settlement of the aforesaid tanks with the petitioner society. The Director of Fisheries, Government of Bihar vide his letter no. 1379 dated 11.8.1987 (Annexure-3) requested the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum for settlement of the aforesaid tanks with the petitioner society. Since despite the revocation of settlement the tank was not settled with the petitioner's society, the petitioner filed Revision Misc. Case No. 20 and 21 of 1989-90 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner' Singhbhum at Chaibassa (respondent no.2). The respondent no. 2 vide his order dated 11.9,1989 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatsila (respondent no. 5) to review the matter with the observation that the settlement of the tanks with the respondent no.8 had been made ignoring the Government's circular. In the light of the above direction, the respondent no. 2. passed the order for cancellation of the settlement made earlier with respondent no. 8 and directed the Circle Officer, Baharagora to settle the tanks with the petitioner. The Circle Officer, Baharagora vide his order dated 2.3.1990 directed the Secretary to the petitioner. Society to deposit the Reserve Jama and settled the aforesaid tanks I for three years. The petitioner society deposited the Jama. It appears that the respondent no. 8 moved this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J. No 587 of 1990(R) challenging the order of cancellation of settlement in its favour. This court quashed the order of settlement on the ground that the cancellation of settlement in favour of the respondent no. 8 was done without notice to the said respondent. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 2 with direction to dispose of the same after hearing the parties m accordance with law. After remanding the. matter was heard by the respondent no. 2 in presence of both the parties. The respondent no. 2 by the impugned order held that there was no justification for cancellation of the settlement of tanks made with respondent no. 8. He accordingly directed the Anchal Adhikari, Baharagora to treat the approval made by the Sub-Divisional. Officer, Ghatsila dated 21.6.1989 valid and to act accordingly. 5. Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the averments made in paragraphs 28 and 36 of the writ application• has submitted that the order as contained in Annexure-5 is arbitrary, malafide and illegal being contrary to the sairat settlement Administrative instructions of the Government and recommendation of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. 5. Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the averments made in paragraphs 28 and 36 of the writ application• has submitted that the order as contained in Annexure-5 is arbitrary, malafide and illegal being contrary to the sairat settlement Administrative instructions of the Government and recommendation of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. It has been strongly urged by Ram Kishore Prasad that although the order of Assistant Registrar as contained in Annexure-l has no statutory force still the respondents are bound to honour the counter affidavits (sic) has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6 and 8. 6. Mr. D. Dash appearing for the respondent no. 8 has relied on the counter affidavit affirmed by the Secretary of respondent no. 8 and has submitted that the decision as contained in Annexure-l is either the manufactured documents and/or it was not at all given effect to. In the alternative. It was argued that the said decision was taken behind the back of respondent no. 8 hence the decision was illegal. Mr. Dash contended that the alleged decision regarding area of operation of the two societies as contained in Annexure-l was never given effect which will be evident from the fact that the respondent no.7 himself had recommended for settlement of the two tanks in question with respondent no.8 for three years and further that the two societies by agreement dated 21.5.1986 made between them had agreed that settlement of the tanks as existing before shall continue and Digbaradha Tank and Khamar Tank shall be settled with respondent no.8 along with other tanks. A copy of the agreement dated 21.5.1986 has been annexed as annexure B/8. It is thus an admitted position that the two disputed tanks were being settled with respondent no. 8 continuously for six years prior to the present disputed settlement made in 1989, which fact also finds mention in the impugned order dated 4.9.1990 (Annexurc-5). Mr. Dash lastly submitted that the respondent no. It is thus an admitted position that the two disputed tanks were being settled with respondent no. 8 continuously for six years prior to the present disputed settlement made in 1989, which fact also finds mention in the impugned order dated 4.9.1990 (Annexurc-5). Mr. Dash lastly submitted that the respondent no. 2 has given cogent and just reasons for passing the impugned order dated 4.9.1990 after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and the same cannot be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to any administrative instruction or policy of the State Government since there is no such administrative instruction and policy having any statutory force nor was there any legal and valid delimitation of areas of operation between the two Co-operative Societies. 7. Some very significant facts have been stated in the counter affidavit of respondent nos.1 to 6. It has been stated in para 8 of the affidavit that the Circle Officer had issued Is-thahar to both the Societies to participate in the auction for settlement of tanks in question. Respondent no. 8 took part in the auction on the date fixed whereas the petitioner did not. The tanks, therefore, were settled with respondent no. 8. This fact has been denied by the petitioner. 8. It has not been controverted by the petitioner that it has taken settlement of two tanks which lies within the area of operation of respondent no.8. 9. Similarly as noticed hereinbefore, the tanks in question had earlier been settled with the respondent no. 8. It is, therefore clear that the area of operation of two co-operative societies have not been strictly adhered to. No case, thus, for our interference with the impugned order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Further this court cannot enter into the thicket of disputed question of fact in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.