JUDGMENT The legality and validity of order of settlement dated 6th January, 1996 in respect of settlement of Uzan Lohit Kherkatia Suti Fishery of Lakhimpur District is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The relevant facts of the case breiefly narrated below : The State Govt received 3 (three) applications for the settlement of the fishery in question which the Government proposed to settle under proviso to Rule 12 but however considering the facts that the respondent No.3 was the sitting lessee and accordingly found him more suitable than the petitioner's society and accordingly settled the society with the respondent No.3. Hence the writ petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner as raised by the petitioner in this Civil Rule is that the respondents acted at all relevant time in discriminatory and hostile manner towards the petitioner's society in settling the fishery in question. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Laskar though petitioner's society is in the neighbourhood in the fishery in question was never favoured by the respondent/State authority in the distribution of Government largesses for the last 20 years. It was stated that the petitioner's society was registered in the year, 1976 as Fishery Co-operative of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned belonging to the Scheduled Castes Community of the State and the respondents continuously preferred respondent in allotment of Governmental contract Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand the Government showed over generosity and favourism to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 overlooking the genuine claim of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of its affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed on 4.4.96. Petitioner averred in the aforesaid paragraph about the settlement of Bhati Subansiri Fishery which was settled for 3 (three) years with the respondent No.3 and in the course of hearing Mr. Laskar the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court in respect of the settlement order dated 6.4.1994 settling the No.7 Bhati Subansiri Fishery in Lakhimpur District to the petitioner at an annual revenue ofRs.70,400/- (Rupees seventy thousand four hundred) only for a period from 1.4.94 to 31.3.97. The copy of the aforesaid settlement order has been kept in record of the case. Mr. The copy of the aforesaid settlement order has been kept in record of the case. Mr. Laskar further submits that long before the order of settlement the petitioner's society made complaint against the respondent No.3 about the subleasing of the fishery to non Scheduled Castes persons. The petitioner also by its application dated 26.12.95 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister, Fishery stated about the settlement of Bhati Subansiri Fishery with the respondent No.3. According to Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner that Minister, Fishery dated 27.12.95 endorsed to the Under Secretary, Fishery to examine and report for disposal on the date of settlement to be given to a deserving contender. The two applications addressed to the Minister dated 26.12.95 are annexed to the writ petition are Annexure 6 and 7. The petitioner also brought my attention about the application accompained by an affidavit dated 28th December, 1995 addressed to the Minister, Fisheries, Govt of Assam as per Annexure 8 wherein it was stated that President of the respondent/society and the Secretary of the respondent/society are not actual fisherman and the President in fact according to the petitioner was working as a wholetime teacher in the Govt Aided Lohit Middle English School, Baligaon of Lakhimpur District, Assam and the Secretary of the said society is also a licence holder driver running a transport business at Lakhimpur. It was also averred in the said application about the sub-leasing of the fishery to non Scheduled Castes persons. The gravamen of the charge of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 although was not eligible for the settlement and though the same was brought to the notice of the settling authority kept the allegations in a cold storage with a view to favour, the said respondent by way of settlement. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents/settling authority acted in a illegal and arbitrary fashion in settling the fishery in question with the respondent No.3.On the face of materials available before the authority showed the proven disqualification of the respondent No.3, submits the learned counsel. 5. Mr. Phookan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Das, Advocate for the respondent No.3 supports the order of settlement and submits that no illegality has been commited by the respondents in settling the fishery in question with the respondent No.3 and therefore there is no scope for judicial review, Mr. 5. Mr. Phookan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Das, Advocate for the respondent No.3 supports the order of settlement and submits that no illegality has been commited by the respondents in settling the fishery in question with the respondent No.3 and therefore there is no scope for judicial review, Mr. Phookan, learned Senior Advocate submits that Govt is the guarantor of the fishery leasing it found that both the societies are eligible for settlement and between these two the settling authority has chosen the respondent No.3 on the considering that during, earlier settlement the respondent No.3 discharged their contractual duties voluntarily, proficiently and in a business like fashion and without leaving any outstanding and paid to the Government the kist money regularly, and on consideration of which respondents settled the fishery in question with the respondent No.3 which cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration submits Mr. Phookan. 6. The proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules made under section 155 of the Regulations has a meaningful object. The real object of the proviso to provide socio economic justice to the weaker section of the community and protect this class of people from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. 7. Article 38 of the Constitution of India echoes the preamble of the Constitution to strike down arbitrariness and to promote the social justice. The objective behind the Article 39 (a), (b) and (c) is to build a welfare State by a non violent social innovation. Article 41 obligates all the three organs to interpret the legislative provisions to advance the cause of justice. Article 46 imposes duty on the State to promote economic interest of the weaker section. The ultimate object of all forms of welfare is the development of the human being. The provision to Rule 12 is therefore has to be read in conformity with the directive principle as contained Part IV of the Constitution of India. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Arbinda Das vs. State of Assam reported hi AIR 1981 Gauhati 18 fully dealt with the provisions containing in the proviso to Rule 12. The proviso to Rule 12 was introduced to preserve and protect the interest of the fishing community to ameliorate their conditions so that the persons in the neighbourhood with the fishery can eke out their levelihood. The proviso to Rule 12 was introduced to preserve and protect the interest of the fishing community to ameliorate their conditions so that the persons in the neighbourhood with the fishery can eke out their levelihood. The Rule 8 (b) of the Rule also clothed the settling authority with the discretion of extension of the lease in exceptional cases for a reasonable period so as to enable such lessee to make good the loss. Both the Rules are distinct in its content. In awarding the order of settlement, the respondents failed to take into consideration the case of the petitioner's society which though found to be eligible was not offered with any settlement in the last twenty years which is derogatory to the econimic interest of the said society. While the State Govt gave the added advantage to the respondent No.3 as a sitting lessee overlooking the other relevant claim of the petitioner viz claim of the petitioner's society as being the society of the neighbourhood without any settlement for the last 20 years. While reaching the claim of the petitioner, respondent failed to take note of the competing claim of the petitioner's society. The petitioner atleast prior to the order of settlement brought to the attention of the authority that respondent No.3 was already favoured with one settlement and that settlement is subsisting on 31.3.97. The petitioner also made the settling authority aware and brought some allegations about sub-leasing of the fishery and those allegations atleast was worthy of an enquiry by a summary manner. In the distribution of the community property it should be informed with distributive fairness and justice. Though, State is the trustee of the wealth but in dispensation of the wealth the State and its machineries must act firry and justly and hi conformity with Article the provisions contained in Part III and IV of the Constitution to provide fair and equitable distribution of wealth amongst the members of the weaker section of the people. The respondents therefore fell into, serious irror in passing the impugned order by settling the fishery in its decision making, process by taking into irrelevant consideration overlooking the relevant situation. Considering all, aspects of the matter, I am of the view that impugned order dated 6.1.96 is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents therefore fell into, serious irror in passing the impugned order by settling the fishery in its decision making, process by taking into irrelevant consideration overlooking the relevant situation. Considering all, aspects of the matter, I am of the view that impugned order dated 6.1.96 is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to settle the fishery by taking into consideration the respective applications of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 in the light of observation made above. The respondent No. 1 is accordingly directed to examine the respective cases of the parties under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules, in the light of the observation made above within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Within this period respondents may also enquire the allegations of the petitioner in respect of the respondent society by giving fair opportunities to respondent No.3 as well as the petitioner. But under no circumstances the process of settlement shall be delayed beyond the schedule prescribed by this Court. Though the order of settlement is set aside, considering the public interest, the respondent No.3 should be allowed to operate the fishery during this period. However, it is made clear that respondent No.3 is allowed to operate the fishery in question as a stop gap arrangement but it shall not be construed that this Court has legatimised the order of settlement in favour of M/s Uzan Lohit Kherkotia Suti Min Samabai Samity Ltd. As a matter of fact the order of settlement with the said respondent is set aside but only as a stop gap arrangement during the interregnum, the said respondent society is allowed to operate. If for any reason the process of settlement including the enquiry could not be completed within 2 (two) months in that event the State Government should take possession of the fishery through the respective Deputy Commissioner and operate the same departmentally through any other agency other than the respondent, M/s Uzan Lohit Kherkotia Suti Min Samabai Samity. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Considering entire facts and situation of the case there shall be no order as to costs.