This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for non-compliance of the direction issued by the Barpeta Mahakuma Parishad to the Maadia Anchalik Panchayat regarding settlement of Nos.9, 10 and 11 Satra Kanara Khul Khanta Fishery which is within the jurisdiction of Mandia Anachalik Panchayat. 2. Writ petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is actual fisherman by profession. Tenders were invited for settlement of the above fishery for the period of one year viz 1.6.93 to 31.5.94 by the President of the above Anchalik Panchayat by notice dated 15 5.93 which was actually published on 14.6.93. In response to the above notice as many as 9 persons including the petitioner submitted tenders. One tender of Jagabandu Das who offered second highest amount was rejected being defective and the highest tenderer withdrew his tender expressing his inability to accept the settlement of fishery. Therefore, amongst all the tenderers, the amount offered by the writ petitioner was the highest and the said amount was Rs 37, 731.75. Tie lowest offer was Rs. 21,051 OD The Anchalik Panchayat did not settle the fishery with the petitioner, but offered the settlement in favour of the lowest tenderer. As the settlement requires approval of the Mahakuma Pariahad, all the papers were called for and In respect of the present fishery the Mahakuma Parishad, Barpeta by letter dated 23.7.93 vide Annexure i to the writ petition directed the Anchalik Panchayat as follows :- 'Discussions were held regarding settlement of Nos. 9, 10 aud 11 Satra Kanara Khul Khanta Fishery and the highest bidder having expressed his inability to accept the settlement, the second highest bidder Shri Patati Das is recommended for settlement at his bid. The confirmation of the tender made by the Anchalik Pancbayat could not be confirmed." When this petition came up as a motion on 29.7.93, this Court passed the following orders :- "In the meantime, respondents Mos.2 and 3 are directed to accept the kist money from the petitioner in respect of Nos. 9, 10 and 11 Satra Kanara Khanta Fishery under Maudia Anchalik Panchayat settled with him as per order dated 23.7.93 issued by the Barpeta Mahakuma Parishad (Annexure F) and allow the petitioner to operate in the fishery." 3. On behalf of the Panchayat, a petition has been filed for modification of the above interim order which has been registered as Misc. On behalf of the Panchayat, a petition has been filed for modification of the above interim order which has been registered as Misc. Case Jo.562 of 1993. 4. Heard Mr. HN Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sharif, learned counsel for the Anchalik Panchayat and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Govt. Advocate. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was decided to dispose of the entire matter finally as from the records such an order can be passed and that apart, this is a question of settlement of fishery only for one year. 5. First submission of Mr. Sharif is that as settlement by Anchalik Panchayat is not effective unless it is confined by the Mahakuma Parisha i, the present petitioner has no locus stand! to approach this Court. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel, inasmuch as, petitioner is aggrieved for nan-implementation of the orders of the Mahakuma Parishad by the Anchalik Panchayat in question and therefore, he has got right to appro­ach this Court. It may be stated that form the Annexures filed along with the writ petition it is absolutely clear that even though the settlement of the fishery was not confirmed by the Mahakuma Parishad, the Anchalik, Panchayat allowed the lowest bidder to operate in the fisher/ and ultimately Mahakuma Parishad by letter dated 17.7 93 had to approach tie Officer-in charge of the Police Station to prevent fishing any person without getting settlement vide Annexure D to the writ petition. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. Sharif is rejected. 6. To appreciate the point the following provisions of the Assam Panch-ayati Raj Act 1986 are relevant; - Section 37 of the Act lays down the duties and function of Anchadk Panchayat under 7 heads. For the present purpose clause (c) in the sphere of administration is relevant. This clause empowers the Anchalik Panchayat to settle hats, public ferries invested in it and fixed rent and tools. Under this first proviso the rate of the highest bidder in case of settlement shall only be considered. Section 33 of the Act lays down duties and function of Mahikurnai Parishad and under clause (b), the Mahakuma Parishad case review the work of Anchalik Panchayat from time to time. Section 76 of the Act is regarding settlement of fisheries and dhtribution of proceeds thereof. Section 33 of the Act lays down duties and function of Mahikurnai Parishad and under clause (b), the Mahakuma Parishad case review the work of Anchalik Panchayat from time to time. Section 76 of the Act is regarding settlement of fisheries and dhtribution of proceeds thereof. Sub-section (1), inter alia, provides thatisave as otherwise provided in the Act or Rules framed thereunder all fisheries of and Anchalik Panchayal or Gaon Paochayat shall be settled by the Anchalik Panchayat in the manner prescribed for a period conceding with and not exceeding one Panchayat financial year by inviting tender in the office of the Anchalik Ranchayat by its President. Sub-section (3) provides that all settlement made shall be subject to confirmation by the Mahalcuma Parishad and according to tint proviso to the sub-section in case of any dispute, the Mahalcuma Parishad may refer such cases to the State Govt. whose decision in this regard shall be final. The second proviso further provides that as and when deemed necessary, the State Govt. may intervene in the matter of a particular settlement and its-decision in this regard shall be final 7. I may now refer to Rule 58 of the Assam Panchayatt Raj (Financial Rules), 1990, According to second proviso to sub-rule (7), the tender of the highest bidder shall be accepted And acceptance of tender other than highest bidder shall require previous and formal approval of the Govt, 8. Thus, it appears that the intention of the legislature and rule making authority is absolutely clear from the above provisions of the Act and the Rule that the powers of the Anchalik Panchayat is very limited. Once the tender are found valid, the highest tender has to be accepted and such settlement shall be effective only after its confirmation by the Mahakuma Parishad. 9. I may state here that a Division Bench of this Court also held after considering the provisions of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act and Rules framed thereunder that in case of settlement by Panchayat of fisheries, hats etc, the highest tender has be accepted if the tender is found valid. 10. Mr. Sharif has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter filed on behalf of the Anchalik Panchayat and has urged that bid of the writ petiti­oner was exorbitant and as such the Anchalik Panchayat has power not to accept the tender of the writ petitioner. 10. Mr. Sharif has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter filed on behalf of the Anchalik Panchayat and has urged that bid of the writ petiti­oner was exorbitant and as such the Anchalik Panchayat has power not to accept the tender of the writ petitioner. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel in view of the clear legal provisions that settlement has to be offered to the highest bidder. That apart as stated above as many as 9 persons submitted tenders and the bid offered by the valid tenderers were between Rs. 37,731.75 and Rs.21,051.( 0. Even though the Anchalik Panchayat w-as leg-ally bound to settle the fishery to the highest bidder via the writ petitioner, no explanation is forthcoming, instead of offering settlement to the forward bidder by the Anchalik Panehayat, other tenders were not considered. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Mahakuma Parishad rightly refused to, confirm the settlement of the fishery in question with the lowest bidder and in view of the above legal position, directed the Anchalik Pvnchayat to settle the fishery with the writ petitioner. 11. According to Mr. Sharif if such powers are given to the Mahakuma Parishad, the Anchalik Panchayats and Gaon Panchayats will not be able to function properly. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sharif in view of the fact that section 38 of the Act clearly empowers the Mahakuma Parishad to supervise the working of the Anchalik Panchayat. Therefore, the order of the Mahakuma Parishad cannot be faulted. 12. Mr. Sharif has raised another point that in view of first proviso to sub-section of section 76 if there was a dispute, Mahakurna Parishad should have referred the matter to the Govt. This contention is also not acceptable M in case in hand the question of dispute cannot arise as the Mabakuma Parishad acted within the provisions of law. Therefore, the question of referr­ing the matter to the Govt. does not arise. I may also add here that the power to refer any dispute to the State Govt. is with the Mahakuma Parishad having supervisory power and Anchalik Panchayat cannot take up this plea. 13. Therefore, the question of referr­ing the matter to the Govt. does not arise. I may also add here that the power to refer any dispute to the State Govt. is with the Mahakuma Parishad having supervisory power and Anchalik Panchayat cannot take up this plea. 13. For the reasons stated above, the present petition has got force and the interim order passed by this Court on 29.7.93 as quoted above is made absolute and the Anchalik Panchayat is directed to implement the orders of toe Mahakuma Parishad immediately and positively within a period of 7 days. Petition is disposed of.