In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the Annexure II order dated 14th August, 1989 issued by the second respondent extending the term of lease of No. 43 Khamrangajan and Khamranga Beel Fishery in favour of fourth respondent for a period of three years with effect from 1.4,93 and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the said order. ,, 2. The case of the petitioner society is that fourth respondent is a sitting lessee of the aforesaid fishery and has been enjoying the fishery for the last 18 years. The first settlement was made in 1974. According to the petitioner the last extended term of lease was to expire on 1.4.93 and on coming to know of this, petitioner decided to bid for the fishery. However, later on the petitioner came to know that second respondent extended the lease for further term of three years wef 1.4.93 in favour of fourth respondent. The extension order was passed before expiry of the term of previous extension in purported exercise of powers under proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries. According to the petitioner, this Rule does not envisage any extension during the period of settlement, therefore, the order was passed arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of Rules and also contrary to the object and spirit of the Rules. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel for fourth respondent and also Mr. B Choudh­ury, learned Government Advocate for the State. 4. According to Mr. Lahid the extension order was passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) of the Rules of Settlement for Fisheries without any valid reason. There was no reason why this order should have been passed. The impugned order Annexure II does not show how this power under proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) could be exercised during the period of settlement. According to him, the impugned order indicates that State Government exercised the power under proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries, but in the facts and circumstances of the case the said Rule is not applicable, inasmuch as, the extension was not in respect of pisciculture. The order was thus passed without application of mind. The order was thus passed without application of mind. Therefore, extension given by Annexure II order cannot be sustained in law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that extension of term of lease under proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) can be made with a lessee who due to any natural cause or for any unavoidable reason beyond the control of the lessee suffers any loss, and fche Government may extend the period to -enable hint to make good the loss. However, such extension can he granted on the basis of official report as to the nature of loss, that too oah ia exceptional cases for a reasonable period. The impugned order doss not indicate anything. 5. Mr. SN Bhuyan, teamed counsel appearing on behalf of fourth respondent, however, submitted that extension was granted to the lessee as fie suffered heavy loss due to flood and for prohibitory order passed by the Government from selling of fish during the relevant period because of wide spread disease of fish. Therefore, lessee suffered loss in the year 1988-89 and in order to make good the loss the Government was fully justified is giving extension. There was no illegality or irregularity in giving extension, during the period of settlement as the Government can determine the Joss only at the time when the lessee suffers loss and Government need not waft till expiry of the term of settlement. 6. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned Annexure II order. He also candidly expressed that proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case but, it is only misquoting of provision of law and that cannot invalidate the Annexure II order. In fact the Government exercised the power under proviso to Rule 8 (b) (i) and the facts and circumstances of the case fully justify invocation of the power under the said proviso, inasmuch as in the year 1988-89 there was heavy flood and wide spread disease of fish because of which selling of fish was prohibited and in order to make good the loss, 'it; settlement of the fishery was extended. Mr. Choudhury produced some documents which had been forwarded by the Government. 7. Mr. Choudhury produced some documents which had been forwarded by the Government. 7. On 11.11.86 the fourth respondent submitted an application before the Government praying for exemption of revenue as there had been disease of fish and Irrigation Department had failed to open the water gate to enable the water to enter into the fishery and as a result he had sustained heavy loss, On the basis of this application the Additional Deputy Commissioner submitted a report to the Commissioner and Secretary (Revenue) stating about prohibitory order passed by the Government to sell fish because of disease and also for the failure of the Irrigation Department to open water gate for flow of water into the fishery which occasioned extensive loss to the lessee. The report refers that there is HO provision for exemption of revenue as prayed for by fourth respondent. The report was submitted by the Additional Deputy Collector after his visit to the fishery. 8. Thereafter, the Minister of State, Fisheries Department called for a report from the Commissioner and Secretary. The Commissioner and Secretary in his office note dated 13.6.89 stated that Rule 16 of the Fishery Rules provides remission of revenue in special cases, where "refusal of remission w n cause serious hardships to the lessee,'. He also stated that the lease was for fout years and lessee probably could make up his losses during these years. Besides, fourth respondent has sufficient means to survive small loss suffered in one season. According to the Commissioner and Secretary, there was no justification for allowing remission of revenue in this case, because occasional losses are part of business and the lessee should normally be prepared for them. On perusal of the report, the Minister passed order that no remission should be granted, however, considering the loss sustained by the lessee extension for three years was granted wef 1.4 .93. 9. Now, it is to be seen whether the impugned Annexure II order can be sustained in law. In exercise of power conferred under sections 155 and 156 of the, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and by section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, the Governor of Assam made Rules for the Settle­ment of Tender System. 9. Now, it is to be seen whether the impugned Annexure II order can be sustained in law. In exercise of power conferred under sections 155 and 156 of the, Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and by section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, the Governor of Assam made Rules for the Settle­ment of Tender System. Under Rule 8 (a), the Deputy Commissioners or the Additional Deputy Commissioners and in case of Sadar Sub-Divisions, Sub-Divisional Officers shall be the authorities for settlement of registered fisheries under tender system of sale in their respective jurisdiction. Rule 8(b)(i) empo­wers the State Government to txtend period of leas in some exceptional cases. 10. under Rule 8 (b) (ii, the State Government may on the recommen­dation of the Director of Fisheries extend the period of lease of a fishery with an intending pisciculturist, who should invariably be the sitting lessee and who agrees to accept such an extension at a revenue and for such other additional terms and conditions as may be specified by Government. 11. Proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) relates to granting of extension of lease against pisciculture plan. Hence, in the instant case, admittedly proviso to Rule 8 (b) (ii) is not applicable. However, extension can be granted in the present case only under Rule 8 (b) (i) if the conditions necessary for such extension are fulfilled. 12. If we look to the Rule 8 (b) (i), we find that the State Government has power to give extension only in exceptional cases when a lessee suffers certain loss due to any natural cause or for any unavoidable reasons beyond his control. However, such extension can be granted only for a reasonable period. Besides, such extension can be granted only on the basis of an official report as to the nature and cause of such loss sustain-d by the lessee. There­fore, in order to exercise this power, the State Government must first have: an official report regarding the loss sustained by the lessee and only after ascertaining the loss Government may extend the period of lease for a reasonable period to enable such lessee to make good the loss. Therefore, the period of extension must have a close nexus with the loss sustained by the lessee Invariably the quantum of loss is the important criteria for determining the period of extension. 13. Therefore, the period of extension must have a close nexus with the loss sustained by the lessee Invariably the quantum of loss is the important criteria for determining the period of extension. 13. Keeping in view all these aspects, if we look the impugned Annexure II order it will appear that the extension was given for a period of three years with effect from 1.4.93. Besides, the records placed before me by the learned' Government Advocate make the position more precarious. As stated above, the Additional Deputy Commissioner's report simply says that the lessee suffered loss because of the Irrigation Department's failure to open the wafer gate and also the disease suffered by the fish in the year 1988-89. But it is not clear during which period of 1988-89 the lessee suffered the loss. At least this it appear in the official report. The lessee also submitted application for remission of revenue only because- 01 the loss sustained by him. On the basis of this the Minister called for a report from the Commissioner and Secretary; Fishery as to whether remission could be granted. The Commissioner and Secretary in his note dated 13.6.89 stated that Rule 16 of the Fishery Rules provides for remission of revenue but in the instant case there was no justifi­cation for allowing remission. According to him occasional losses are part of business and the lessee should normally be prepared for them. Besides the fourth respondent had another four year to go in the settlement and in all probability the lessee would be able to recover the loss. On the basis of this the Minister passed order that no remission should be granted, however, considering the loss sustained by the lessee extension for three years was granted wef 1.4.93. 14. A bare reading of Rule 8 (b) it will appear that the Deputy Commi­ssioner or, the Additional Deputy Commissioners or Sub Divisional Officers, as the case may be, may extend the period of such lease when the less TC' suffers loss due to any natural cause or for any unavoidable reasons beyond the control of the lessees. However, such actions can be made only which their is an official report to this effect, even though such power can be exercised exceptionally in special case for a reasonable period. However, such actions can be made only which their is an official report to this effect, even though such power can be exercised exceptionally in special case for a reasonable period. From the material* available before me I do not find any such official report favouring extension of.' lease for the loss sustained by the lessee. On the contrary, the Commissioner' and Secretary gave a report which only suggests that no extension should be granted. It is true, the authorities have power to grant extension in an. appropriate case, but before granting extension the conditions referred to in' Rule 8 (b) must be fulfilled. If the conditions referred to in the said Rule: are not in existence the authority has no power to grant extension. 15. The action of the authority can be challenged before a Court of law and the Court may determine the legality of the impugned decision on its own independent judgment. If the decision of the authority is contrary what the Court considers to be the right, the action of the authority is liable1 to be upset. Where the action of the authority is based on finding of fact, the Court is required to examine only the reasonableness of the finding. When the finding is appeared to be rational and reasonably based on evidence, then the judicial review is exhausted even though finding may not be what the Court would have come to the finding, whether an action is characterised as legislative or administrative or quasi judicial, or whether it is a determin­ation of law or fact; the decision of the expert body, entrusted with power is generally treated as final and the judicial function is exhausted when is found to have a rational basis in law 16. Function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment and not to attempt itself the task entrusted to that authority by the law. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which, it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which, it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. A repository of power acts ultra viras within it acts in excess of his power or in abuse of his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant ground or without regard to relevant considerations to the object on the basis of which the authority has been so empowered. 17. Even if the statutory order is passed in good faith and with the best of intend m to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the powers, since the authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged of it is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no grounds at all for passim it or if the grounds are such that on one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction, requisite under legislation In any one of these situations, it can be well said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts, (see AIR 1967 SC 295 ; Barium Chemicals Ltd vs. Company Law Board). 18. Coming to the present case in hand, I find that the Minister passed the extension order without caring to know what was the exact loss suffered by the lessee, or whether the lessee actually suffered the loss or not. Moreover while passing the extension order there was no material before the Minister to ascertain the loss. The application was filed by the lessee for remission of revenue and the official note indicates that remission in the said case could not be granted. As the remission was not possible, the Minister straight way passed the order for extension. In my opinion this is not envisaged under Rule. Besides, all citizens expect enjoyment o. State largess like settlement of fishery and therefore, such entitlement should not be refused unreasonably. The action appears to me is not reasonable. Besides the impugned order was passed contrary to the Rules. 19. In my opinion this is not envisaged under Rule. Besides, all citizens expect enjoyment o. State largess like settlement of fishery and therefore, such entitlement should not be refused unreasonably. The action appears to me is not reasonable. Besides the impugned order was passed contrary to the Rules. 19. In view of the above, I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustains.). Accordingly, I set aside the Annexure II order dated 14th August, 1989 passed by the second respondent. However, I make no order as to costs.