Both the Civil Rules involve common questions of Jaw and similar facts and arising out of a common order. In both the Civil Rules the petitioner have challenged the order dated 20.5.95 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, settling No. 1 Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery with the respondent fishery co-operative society, namely, M/s Baghpuri Maimal Min Samabai Samity Ltd. 2. In respect of this fishery there has been several litigations in the recent past because in every settlement, some unsuccessful societies have approached this Court. 3. The petitioner in Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995 is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949. This society was registered in the year 1953. The claim of the society is that all the members of the society are actual fishermen belonging to the Kaibarta community. This community is included in the listed class. The area of operation of the petitioner society is Rangamati Mouza, Sambari Mouza and Sapai Mouza of Darrang District consisting of 20 villages. Fishing and trade in fish are the only sources of livelihood of the members of the petitioner society. 4. On 20.4.94 the said fishery was settled by the Government with the petitioner society by way of direct settlement for a period of 5 years. The 5th respondent namely, M/s Baghpuri Maimal Min Samabay Samity Ltd approached this Court by filing a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1523 of 1994) challenging the order of settlement dated 20.4.94. On 16.2.95 the aforesaid Civil Rule was disposed of by this Court by setting aside the order of settlement dated 20.4.94 and remanded the matter to the Government for making settlement by applying correct principle of law. 5. On 5.4.95 the petitioner society filed application praying for settlement of the fishery. The Government called for reports from the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaldai on 15.4.95. On 27.4.95 the Deputy Commissioner submitted reports in respect of the petitioner society stating, inter alia, that the petitioner society was formed with 100% members of fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes community and the fishery in question was within the area of operation of the society. Besides, the petitioner society was also found to be not defaulter in respect of Government revenue and there was no Bakijai proceeding pending against the fishery. Besides, the petitioner society was also found to be not defaulter in respect of Government revenue and there was no Bakijai proceeding pending against the fishery. On 19.5.95 the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang cancelled the settlement of the fishery made with the petitioner in pursuance of the Government order dated 9.5.95 and the order passed by this Court' in Civil Rule No.1523 of 1994. Thereafter, on 20.5.95 the Government passed the impugned order dated 20.5.95 settling the fishery in respect of respondent No.5 (Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995) and hence the present petition. 6. Similarly, the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995, namely, M/s Sati Radhika Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd, Darrang filed the Civil Rule challenging the order of settlement dated 20.5.95 giving settlement to respondent No.3, namely, M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen -Samabay Samity Ltd and prayed for quashing the order passed by the Government giving settlement. The £ contention of the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995 inter alia is that the settlement was given to M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen Samabay Samity Ltd in purported exercise of power under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, without however the said society fulfilling the requirements for getting direct settlement under the proviso to said rule. According to the petitioner the said society was running 4 numbers of fisheries. The respondent society namely c M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen Samabay Samity Ltd formed with the members belonging to Maimal community are not entitled to get direct settlement, inasmuch as under proviso to Rule 12 direct settlement can be given to fishery co-operative society with the members belonging to the Maimal community of Cachar District only. This community cannot be equaled with the Scheduled Castes community, in the matter of getting settlement under proviso to Rule 12, " of other parts of the State. 7: Heard Mr. DN Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2091 of 1995, Ms. A. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior Govt Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 4 in Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995 and respondent Nos.l and 2 in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995, Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 in Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995 and also on behalf of the respondent No.3 in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995 and Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 in Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995 and also on behalf of the respondent No.3 in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995 and Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995. 8. Mr. Chowdhury assailed the decision of the Government' in giving settlement to respondent No.5 M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen Samabay Samity f Ltd. Learned counsel submitted that while giving settlement invoking the power under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rule^, the Government exceeded its jurisdiction inasmuch as the settlement of the fishery was given to respondent No.3 without considering the relevant factors for giving direct settlement under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. The learned counsel further submitted that normal procedure for giving settlement of 60% of the fisheries in the sub- g division was to settle by auction. However, in certain circumstances the Government may give settlement directly without putting the fishery in auction. In case the Government decides to give settlement directly, it can do so only with the fishery, co-operative societies formed with 100% actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes communities of the State or Maimal community of the Cachar District, living in the neighourhood of the fishery concerned. Mr. " Chowdhury further submitted that the State Government had no power to give settlement without fulfilling the conditions mentioned in proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. Learned counsel also submitted that though the respondent society was formed with members belonging to Maimal community, the fishery was situated in the Darrang District and, as such, it was not entitled to get the settlement directly under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. Learned Government Advocate supported the order of settlement. 9. Mr. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2161 of 1995 had adopted the submission of Mr. Chowdhury so far giving settlement of the fishery to M/s Baghpuri Maimal Min Samabay Samity Ltd was concerned. He further submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Government ought to have settled it with the petitioner society, namely, Sati Radhika Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen Samabay Samity Ltd strenuously argued in support of the order of settlement. He further submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Government ought to have settled it with the petitioner society, namely, Sati Radhika Matshyajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Baghpuri Maimal Meen Samabay Samity Ltd strenuously argued in support of the order of settlement. He further submitted that the said respondent society fulfilled all the conditions and requirements for getting direct settlement under proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that the Government had given the settlement to the respondent society strictly following the directions given by this Court in judgment and order dated 16.2.95. 10. On the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties it is to be seen whether the impugned order of settlement can sustain in law. Before we consider the relative claims of the parties regarding settlement of the fishery it will be expedient if we look into the relevant provisions of Fishery Rules relating to settlement. Under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, 60 percent of the registered fisheries shall be settled by tender system with the co-operative fishery societies formed with 100% share holders from the members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the State and/or Maimal community of the district of Cachar and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 and the remaining fisheries in the sub division available in that year shall be settled under tender system of sale and shall remain open for settlement to all communities including co-operative societies. A proviso has been added by the Government by notificationNo.VFF.10/76/Pt/l l-A/12 dated 5.6.76. The proviso reads thus: "Provided that the State Government may settle any registered fishery otherwise than under tender system with fishery co-operative society formed with 100 percent actual fishermen of the fishing population in the neighourhood of the fishery concerned and belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the State or Maimal Community of the Cachar District at a revenue calculated and for a period decided by the State Government from time to time." By reading the above provision it is abundantly clear that 60% of the registered fisheries available for settlement shall be settled normally by tender system. However, by adding the proviso to the said Rule 12 Government has been given the power \o give settlement without going through the process of tender system, by direct, settlement. However, there are certain restrictions on the part of the Government to give settlement of a fishery directly. If at all the Government decides to give settlement directly, it can give only to fishery co­operative society formed with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing population in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned and belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the State and/or Maimal community of the district. Therefore, when the Government decides to give settlement directly few things are required to be seen by the Government while giving settlement. It must be a fishery co­operative society and that society must be formed with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing population in the 'neighbourhood' of the fishery concerned. The members of the said society must belong to the Scheduled Castes of the State or Maimal community of Cachar District. Besides, the members of the society must be actual fishermen living in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. The Government can give direct settlement only on fulfilment of the above conditions. In the absence of any of those conditions, the Government will have no jurisdiction to give settlement of any fishery in the said category under proviso to Rule 12. 11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chowdhury that Maimal community of Cachar District was entitled to get settlement only in the district of Cachar. If the society with the members of the said community resides outside Cachar it will not be eligible for getting settlement under proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules. The second submission of Mr. Chowdhury was that the Government was required to see whether the members of the society reside nearer to the fishery. Learned counsel also submitted that if the members of the society were not residents in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned the said society was not entitled to get settlement under the proviso to the said Rules. 12. Mr. AM Mazumdar submitted that the Maimal community was entitled to get settlement even if the society was formed outside Cachar District. The only condition necessary for giving settlement to a society formed with Maimal community was that the members must originally belong to Cachar District. 12. Mr. AM Mazumdar submitted that the Maimal community was entitled to get settlement even if the society was formed outside Cachar District. The only condition necessary for giving settlement to a society formed with Maimal community was that the members must originally belong to Cachar District. According to him it was not necessary that the society must be situated in the Cachar District only. The members of the 5th respondent admittedly belonged to Maimal community of Cachar District and, therefore, they were entitled to get settlement under the proviso to Rule 12. 13. From reading of Rule 12 it is abundantly clear that 60% of the fisheries shall invariably be given to a fishery co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, if the society is formed with 100% actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes community of the State or Maimal community of Cachar District. Therefore, as per Rule 12, the fisheries are to be settled by tender system in the manner prescribed above. As per proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules, State Government can give settlement to a fishery co-operative society directly. However, before giving such settlement the Government has to be satisfied that the said society is formed with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing community of the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. The actual fishermen residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery forming a fishery co-operative society is the first criterion for giving settlement. Therefore, the Government is duty bound whenever it intends to give settlement directly under the said proviso, to make all endeavour to find out whether the members of the fishery co-operative society are actual fishermen and whether these members reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. The absence of any of the conditions will disentitle the State Government to make direct settlement to that society. The very purpose of making the proviso is to give the benefit of the fishery to the actual fishermen living in the neighbourhood of the fishery. The expression 'neighbourhood' has become a vexed question now. There are numberous litigations on this point alone. This Court has come across very many orders in the recent past in this regard. The question is often raised whether 'the area of operation' and the 'neighbourhood' are synonymous to each other. Whether the meaning of expression 'neighbourhood' and 'the area of operation' are one and the same. There are numberous litigations on this point alone. This Court has come across very many orders in the recent past in this regard. The question is often raised whether 'the area of operation' and the 'neighbourhood' are synonymous to each other. Whether the meaning of expression 'neighbourhood' and 'the area of operation' are one and the same. If these two expressions convey two different meaning then it will be. the duty of the Government to see whether the members of the society reside in the nieghbaurhood of the fishery concerned because, proviso to Rule 12 speaks of it. The area of operation may be wider area where activities of a fishery co-operative society are carried on. The expression 'neighbourhood', however, means a region lying near : a near position : nearness etc. A fishery may be situated within the area of operation of a particular society but he members of the fishery co-operative society may not live near the fishery. There appears to be some anomalies in this regard. In this connection, a reference may be made to the minutes of discussion of a meeting held in the office of the Chief Minister on 17.12.75. As a copy of this minute was placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner and confirmed by the Government Advocate, I cannot refrain from looking to it. In the said discussion, it was felt that fishing involves group activity and considerable amount of joint preparation. Fishing operations were substantially different from those economic activities undertaken under the auspices of the Gaon Panchayat Level Co-operative Societies. It was decided that: "Separate co-operative societies should be set up for fisheries. There should be one co-operative society for each viable fishery or for a group of small fisheries which would be viable together. The society should be given a long term lease. The existing co-operative societies were not functioning satisfactorily. These should be re-organised as early as possible. In the first phase the fisheries whose lease would expire on the 31st March, 1976 and those fisheries which were taken over during this year by the Director of Fisheries for direct management should be brought under the re-organisation scheme. The management of the societies should be under the direct supervision of officials of the Co-operative Department. They would be assisted by fishery officers. The management of the societies should be under the direct supervision of officials of the Co-operative Department. They would be assisted by fishery officers. Minister, Co-operative agreed that it would be possible to provide the necessary staff including the senior supervisory officers for this purpose of a re-organising about 30 to 40 fisheries co-operatives. It was decided that action on the above line should be taken immediately." Another copy was also placed before me by the Government Advocate regarding the Memorandum of Cabinet. In the said Memorandum of Cabinet, it was decided to follow the recommendation made as per the minutes of discussion held on 17.12.75 in the Office Chamber of the Chief Minister. In the said Memorandum it was decided that reorganisation of fishery co-operative societies be done in the manner contemplated in the aforesaid meeting held on 17.12.75, and also observed that after re-organisation, those societies could not obviously be subjected to a system of competitive tenders. It was felt necessary to devise a means of coupling the fishery with the re-organised societies. After careful consideration it had been observed that this could only be ensured by providing for direct settlement of the fishery with the particular re-organised societies. It was necessary to remove the specter of uncertainity from the minds of the actual fishermen. Thereafter, the fishery co-operative societies were reorganised in 1976. The aim of reorganisation was to give settlement of a fishery or group of fisheries to that society alone. But several controversies had been raised as to who was entitled to get settlement within the meaning of proviso to Rule 12. If reorganisation was with a view to give settlement of the fishery to a co-operative society falling within the reorganised fishery society, in my opinion there can be no doubt or controversy for giving settlement. But the proviso to Rule 12 speaks in a different tone. As per said proviso, direct settlement can be given to a fishery co-operative society, whose members live in the vicinity of the fishery. These question require consideration by the appropriate authority. In my opinion 'the area of operation' and the 'neighbourhood' may not be always same. Proviso to Rule 12 speaks only 'neighbourhood' and not 'the area of operation'. 14. The area of operation of a fishery co-operative socie|y and fishermen living in the neighbourhood may some time criss-cross. These question require consideration by the appropriate authority. In my opinion 'the area of operation' and the 'neighbourhood' may not be always same. Proviso to Rule 12 speaks only 'neighbourhood' and not 'the area of operation'. 14. The area of operation of a fishery co-operative socie|y and fishermen living in the neighbourhood may some time criss-cross. A fishery may fall within the area of operation of a particular fishery co-operative society but the members may not live near the fishery. Members of another fishery co-operative society may live nearer to the said fishery even though the fishery do not fall within the 'area of operation' of the fishery society. Proviso to Rule 12 refers to 'neighbourhood'. This appears to be anomalous. However, so long proviso to Rule 12 is there, direct settlement can be given only on the basis of 'neighbourhood'. It is for the rule making authority to consider about such anomaly. 15. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that respondent No.3 (5) M/s Bagpuri Maimal Min Samabay Samity Ltd was not entitled to get settlement of the fishery in question. The said society was situated in Darrang District and was formed with persons belonging to Maimal community. Referring to proviso to Rule 12, learned counsel Mr. Ghowdhury submitted that benefit of Rule 12 had been given to a fishery co-operative society formed with Maimal community only in the Cachar District and not elsewhere. I have gone through the proviso to Rule 12. On carefuly reading it appears to me that Maimal community in the Cachar District are backward and therefore, they need protection and economic help. The aim of proviso to the said Rule is to give the benefit of a fishery to a co-operative society formed with 100% actual fishermen of the fishing population belonging to Scheduled Castes or Maimal community. Backwardness and economic deprivation are the main criteria for giving the benefit and not the place of residence. Though the members of respondent No.5 belong to the Maimal community of Cachar District, now they are permanently residing in Darrang District and in my view they cannot be deprived of getting the benefit of proviso to Rule 12. 16. Backwardness and economic deprivation are the main criteria for giving the benefit and not the place of residence. Though the members of respondent No.5 belong to the Maimal community of Cachar District, now they are permanently residing in Darrang District and in my view they cannot be deprived of getting the benefit of proviso to Rule 12. 16. Looking to the present case, I find that No.l Darrang Brahmaputra Fishery is situated in the district of Darrang and earlier this fishery was settled with M/s Mandaldai Pioneer Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd by Government order dated 20.4.94. This was challenged before this Court in Civil Rule No. 1523 of 1994. This Court following the Full Bench decision in Aurabinda Das vs. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1981 Gauhati 18, set aside the order of settlement and remanded the matter, to the Government for consideration of the matter regarding settlement on the ground that the impugned order was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court. Pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 16.2.95 passed in the said Civil Rule, the Government passed the impugned order of settlement on 20.5.94. However, this time the settlement was given in favour of respondent No.5/3, rejecting the claim of the petitioner in Civil Rule No.2093 of 1995. While giving settlement to the said fishery, it was claimed that the Government had taken into consideration of the judgment dated 16.2.95 of the Court. Petitions had been filed by the respective fishery co­operative societies. Reports had been called for and received in respect of the said societies. The impugned order indicates that the settlement given to the petitioner society was quashed by this Court and the society could not over come the infirmities indicated in the judgment. Therefore, the Government rejected the case of the petitioners. In the impugned order it has been stated that Sati Radhika Matshajibi Samabai Samity Ltd had no interest of their own other than the interest of the petitioner Mangaldai Pioneer Fishery Co-operative Society and therefore, its case had also been rejected. The claim of Scheduled Castes Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd was rejected by the Government on the ground that the said society had little interest with the case as they did not challenge the settlement order made in favour of Mangaldai Pioneer Fishery Co-operative Society. The claim of Scheduled Castes Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd was rejected by the Government on the ground that the said society had little interest with the case as they did not challenge the settlement order made in favour of Mangaldai Pioneer Fishery Co-operative Society. According to the order, M/s Baghpuri Maimal Min Samabay Samity Ltd alone was the competent society for consideration of giving settlement. As per the impugned order the said society was a regular society consisting of 100% actual fishermen. Besides, the fishery was within the area of operation of the society and all the terms and conditions were found be in order. 17. On going through the impugned order dated 20.5.95 I find that the Government did not make any endeavour to give settlement in accordance with the proviso to Rule 12. The claim of the fishery co-operative societies had. been rejected on one or other grounds, which are in my opinion absolutely irrelevant and extraneous. No endeavour was made to find out who among all these fishery co-operative societies was entitled to get settlement by fulfilling the requirement of proviso to Rule 12. As indicated above, proviso to Rule 12 empowers the State Government to give direct settlement to a fishery co-operative society formed with 100% actual fishermen living in the 'neighbourhood' of the fishery. Members of all the fishery co-operative societies claiming settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 cannot possibly be residents in the 'neighbourhood' of the fishery in question. I also find that the 5th respondent's case was considered on the ground that the fishery was within the area of operation of the said society. As indicated above, the area of operation is not the criterion and the criterion is the 'neighbourhood'. Therefore, in my opinion the entire approach of the Government was absolutely wrong and accordingly the order of settlement cannot sustain. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I set aside the order of settlement and direct the State Government to give settlement of the fishery to a fishery co-operative society under the proviso to Rule 12, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I set aside the order of settlement and direct the State Government to give settlement of the fishery to a fishery co-operative society under the proviso to Rule 12, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. While giving settlement the Government shall consider the following: (i) Whether the claimant-fishery co-operative society is formed with 100% actual fishermen of fishing population belonging to the Scheduled Castes community of the State or Maimal community of Cachar District; (ii) Whether the members of the said society live in the 'neighbourhood' of the fishery in question; and (iii) Whether the said society fulfils the other terms and conditions necessary for giving settlement. The State Government is accordingly directed to dispose of the entire matter and pass final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Till the next settlement the fishery in question l shall be run and managed departmentally. With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.