M. Ramakrishna, C.J.-- The appellant, M/s Biswanath Kumalia Meen Samabai Samity Ltd, was the petitioner in Civil Rule No.4775 of 1995. In that petition, they have called in question the correctness and the legality of the orders made by the Govt. on 25.9.95, Annexure D to the writ petition, and sought for quashing the same for the grounds taken in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both the sides, by an order made on • 12th August, 1996, dismissed the writ petition for the reasons set out in the course of the said order. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has come up with this writ appeal challenging the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge for the grounds taken in the appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. SS Dey. the learned Govt. Advocate, who has produced the original records and also the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 3. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: M/s Biswanath Kaiborta Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd, the respondent No.2 herein, had been a rival applicant seeking settlement of Biswanath Brahmaputra & Baghmara Brahmaputra Fishery in the Sonitpur District. There is no dispute that both the rival claimants are registered co-operative institutions. The Govt. after considering the rival applications, their merits and demerits, passed an order on 28.3.95, by which the right of fishing in the fishery was settled in favour of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by this settlement order in favour of respondent No.2, the petitioner. M/s Biswanath Kumalia Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. who hid been a rival claimant, approached this Court challenging that order of the Govt. . I'm the course of the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 1835 of 1995, it was brought to the notice of this Court that as on the date when the writ petition was filed, a representation presented by the writ petitioner had been pending before the Go\t for consideration. The writ Court with a view to enable the Govt. to hear and dispose of that representation pending before the Govt. . by an order dated 8.5.95. directed the Govt. to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to dispose of the representation in accordance with the law. Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration before the Govt. . The writ Court with a view to enable the Govt. to hear and dispose of that representation pending before the Govt. . by an order dated 8.5.95. directed the Govt. to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to dispose of the representation in accordance with the law. Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration before the Govt. . The Govt. after considering the representation and after hearing the parties on both sides, passed an order on 25th September. 1995, reaffirming the earlier order made by the Govt. settling the right of fishing in the fishery in favour of the second respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the writ petitioner presented Civil Rule No.4775 of 1995, challenging that order of the Govt. . 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, recorded a specific finding in the course of his order under appeal that Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules conferred necessary' power upon the Govt. for settlement of the fishery in question. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Govt. after considering several aspects of the matter, settled the fishery; and the scope of judicial review seeking to review such orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is yen, limited inasmuch as when an order is made in exercise of the administrative power and such orders are called in question before the Court of law7 with a view to press into service judicial review by the Court, the Court is concerned with its legality and not the right of the parties. Thus, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal. 5. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant Who having taken us through the grounds of appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge and also the documentary evidence produced, argued two grounds : (i) That in the consideration made by the Govt. on 25th September. 1995, with a view to reconsider the representation of the writ petitioner as well as the right of the State of Assam, the Govt. authorities had been guided by the interim order of stay granted with a view to maintain status quo between the parties as on the date of reconsideration made by the Govt. on 25th September, 1995, which is incorrect. authorities had been guided by the interim order of stay granted with a view to maintain status quo between the parties as on the date of reconsideration made by the Govt. on 25th September, 1995, which is incorrect. (ii) In the Jight of the law as laid down by this Court in the case of M/s Bapakhat Jibikapath Min Samabay Samity Ltd, Bapakhat vs. State of Assam & others, reported in (1982) 1 GLR 311 and also the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Computers Ltd vs. M/s M & N Publications Ltd & others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 445 , the power exercised by the Govt. under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules resulted in unfettered power with a view to exercise arbitrary jurisdiction affecting Article 14 of the Constitution of India and. therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent however, maintained that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is justified and the same need not be disturbed by this Court, 7. We will now examine the implication of Rule 12 of the Assam Fisher}' Rules. 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Rule 12 read as follows : "12. Except those referred to in sub-rule No.8 (b) above, all registered fisheries shall be settled under tender system of sale in place of sale by auction." The proviso under that rule came to be amended by the notification issued on 27th April, 1977. at page 1428. which is incorporated as follows : "Provided that the State Govt. may settle any registered fisher}' otherwise than under tender system with Fishery Co-operative Society formed with 100 percent actual fishermen of the fishing population of the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned and belonging to the Scheduled Caste of the State or Maimal Community of the Cachar District at a revenue calculated and for a period decided by the State Govt. from time to time." We will now examine as to whether the order passed by the Govt. in exercise of the above powers could be said to be unfettered powers ? from time to time." We will now examine as to whether the order passed by the Govt. in exercise of the above powers could be said to be unfettered powers ? This question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arabinda Das vs. State of Assam & others, reported in (1982) 1 GLR 280 and also in AIR 1981 Gauhati 18. It is seen therefrom that to answer a similar question as raised in the instant case, a Bench of three Judges laid down the following law interpreting the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules and we quote the law as laid down by the Full Bench : "Even if the Govt. selects any fishery to be settled by tender and gives instruction to the Deputy Commissioner or the SDO to lease them out for any specified period and in consequence thereof provisions of Rule 43 are followed and tenders for the settlement are invited. The Govt. is competent under the rules to stop settlement procedure by tender and settle the fishery directly. There is nothing in Rule 12 to show that once the power has been exercised by the State Govt. by directing a fishery to be settled by tender system, the power of the State Govt. to settle it directly is exhausted." (Please paragraphs 23 and 13 of the decision) Again. "Under the provision of Rule 12 both old and new, the State Govt. has got the unfettered power to settle the fisheries directly in compliance with the provisions contained therein. The exercise of the power under this is not arbitrary. There are certain prerequisites which must be satisfied before the power of direct settlement can be exercised by the State Govt. under the proviso. These prerequisites are that - (a) a settlement of a registered fishery can only be made with a fishery co­operative; (b) formed with hundred percent actual fishermen of fishing population; (c) in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned; (d) belonging lo the Scheduled Castes of the State or Maimal Community of the Cachai District; and (e) at a revenue calculated and for a period decided by the State Govt. from time to time. The above prerequisites arc demonstrative of the fact that the State Govt. from time to time. The above prerequisites arc demonstrative of the fact that the State Govt. can directly settle the fishery within the four corners of the provision contained in the proviso."(Emphasis provided) (Paragraph 19 and 20 of the decision) It is further seen that the judgment of the Full Bench clearly laid down that the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules is apiece of social legislation which is created for giving opportunity to the actual fishermen of Scheduled Castes Community and the Maimal Community of Cachar District and their co-operative societies. Again, it is stated in paragraph 20 of the said judgment of the Full Bench : "The purpose behind the incorporation of the proviso to Rule 12 seems to be to give opportunity to the deserving actual fishermen of the locality who may be eminently suitable for the settlement of the fishery but their economic conditions may be such that they may not be in a condition to compete with the other tenderers in settlement of fisheries under tender system. This proviso is really very wholesome, pragmatic and meaningful which is meant to secure settlement to the deserving actual fishermen of the neighbourhood of the fishery. This proviso, in a sense, is an improvement on the old Rule 12. Now the State Govt. 's power is to a certain extent circumscribed inasmuch as, it can only exercise when the prerequisites noted above arc in existence but within that constricted sphere, its power is plenary. In our opinion, this is a piece of social legislation, which is framed for the purpose of giving opportunity to the listed class of persons mentioned in the proviso to Rule 12, in the matter of their avocation." The Full Bench has further held in paragraph 21 of their judgment. "The State Govt. have the undoubted power also of extending the period of lease. This undoubted power of the State Govt. under clause (b) of Rule 8 has not been challenged by the petitioners in these cases." Thus the Full Bench of this Court has endorsed the view that the power conferred upon the State Govt. under Rule 12, though discretionary in character, it is salutary in nature and incorporated with a view to enable suitable and eligible fishermen for being selected for settlement of fisheries. under Rule 12, though discretionary in character, it is salutary in nature and incorporated with a view to enable suitable and eligible fishermen for being selected for settlement of fisheries. Therefore, not only the validity of Rule 12 was upheld by the Full Bench but also the law as laid down by the reasoned judgment goes to show7 that the power of the Govt. to settle a fishery with a view to comply with the prerequisites referred to above, is with a view to extend the benefit to deserving persons. Therefore, it cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature; nor could it be said to be an unguided principle. Therefore in the light of the law as laid down by this Court in the above Full Bench matter, we will have to hold that the power exercised by the Govt. in the instant case cannot be said to be arbitrary or unguided power. Therefore, the first point of argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not have any force. 8. Dealing with the second ground of attack, we will now consider the view taken by the Single Bench in the case of M/s Bapakhat Jibikapath Min Samabay Samity Ltd (supra). The question that arose for consideration in that decision was as to whether the power conferred upon the Govt. under proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules could be said to be arbitrary in character. Answering the said question in paragraph 13 of the above judgment, the Single Bench held that the petitioner was not able to make out a case to show that any injustice was caused to the petitioner by virtue of the power exercised by the Govt. under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant seeking to press this decision to the facts of this case is that if the power has been exercised under Rule 12 of the Rules by the Govt. overlooking the pre­requisites as provided under the proviso provided thereto, then it must be held to be arbitrary in nature. In paragraph 12 of the decision, it is stated : "The exercise of power would be arbitrary not only where the pre-requisites are absent, but where the procedure followed is unknown and unreasonable. overlooking the pre­requisites as provided under the proviso provided thereto, then it must be held to be arbitrary in nature. In paragraph 12 of the decision, it is stated : "The exercise of power would be arbitrary not only where the pre-requisites are absent, but where the procedure followed is unknown and unreasonable. So, for the invocation of the power in question, apart from the existence of all the pre­requisites, the procedure to be followed must also be fair, just and reasonable." The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Govt. did not consider the pre-requisites as provided under the proviso to Rule 12 of the rules inasmuch as according to him. in the course of the directions made by the Govt. on 25th of September. 1995. while considering the representation of the petitioner, it is seen therefrom that the Go\t has been guided away by the interim direction given by the writ Court seeking to maintain status quo between the parties and based upon this guiding principle, the Govt. reached a conclusion which is bad in law. 9. With a view to appreciate the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the original records and we have seen that the Govt. while refering to the direction given by the writ Court directing the Govt. to consider the representation made by the petitioner, the competent authority of the Govt. while considering the same, observed as follows : "Govt. will have no objections whatsoever if the settlement is made with eligible contender and by way of its negotiations if these parties enter into an amicable settlement to run the fishery. But the Govt. have constrained to settle the fishery with one of the contenders to make feasible to fix responsibility with a particular society. Since the society having area operation and legally constituted society of 100% actual fishermen without having Bakijai case, the sitting lessee who received Hon'ble High Court's status quo order is considered suitable in the zone of consideration. Hence the prayer petition of M/s Bisvvanath Kumalia Min Samabai Samittee Ltd is hereby rejected." The argument advanced in the light of the above observation of the Govt. is that the Govt. Hence the prayer petition of M/s Bisvvanath Kumalia Min Samabai Samittee Ltd is hereby rejected." The argument advanced in the light of the above observation of the Govt. is that the Govt. is guided away by the status quo order made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition with a view to maintain status quo between the parties as on that date, and not the prerequisites as contained under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules. We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel inasmuch as the Govt. in the course of its order, referred to the salient features of the conflict between the societies including the pre-requisites as provided under the rules inasmuch as it is held in page 3 of the order made by the Govt. that: "The Govt. have gone through the feasible part and seen that regarding area operation they are having equal footing and they are 100% actual fishermen fishing and catching fish and fishing is their only livelihood. The question of Bakijai case of defaulting amount have not been raised by either of them and it is not going records also." Similarly, dealing with the rights of the rival parties, it has also been held : "'As to the above two contenders who fought legal battle before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court after hearing them at length directed the Govt. to maintain a status quo i.e., to allow the sitting lessee to usher the cause of the fishery till this has been finally decided by the Govt. ." By a careful consideration of the order of the Govt. made on 25th September. 1995, it is clear that the merits and demerits of both parties to the petition have been considered, though at page 4 of the order of Govt. a reference to the direction of the writ Court to maintain status quo between the parties as on that date has been made, but that does not go to show that while passing the impugned order, the Govt. was guided by the interim order of the writ Court, made with a view to maintain status quo between the parties as on that date, alone. Therefore it is not possible for us to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. was guided by the interim order of the writ Court, made with a view to maintain status quo between the parties as on that date, alone. Therefore it is not possible for us to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Before parting with this case, it is further seen that the Full Bench decision in the case of Arabinda Das (supra), referred to above, was delivered on 21st August, 1980 which came to be reported in AIR 1981 Gauhati 18. whereas the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bapakhat Jibikapath Min Samabay Samity Ltd (supra), was on 17th September, 1980 that means a few days after the pronouncement of the Full Bench in the above Full Bench matter. Unfortunately, the Single Bench had not noticed the law as laid down in the Full Bench matter as otherwise the view taken by the Full Bench is binding on the Single and the Division Bench until that decision has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the view taken by the Single Bench to the extent of the contradiction found in the law as laid down by the Full Bench is no longer good law. 11. In view of the foregoing, we do not see any merit in this appeal and the appeal fails. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.