Judgement The dispute involved in this writ petition has got a chequered history. It relates to settlement of Kharungpat Fishery No. 164. The said Fishery was under a lease to Kharungpat Fishing cum-pisciculture Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. for a long time without being put to public auction. This Court in Civil Rule No. 1147/94 inter-alia directed that after the expiry of lease period i.e. 31-3-95, the said fishery shall be put to public auction in accordance with the Fishery Rules. This observation was made with a sole intention to sell the fishery by public auction so that State may earn more revenue. 2. It appears that pursuant to that direction, the fishery was put to auction sale on 9-8-96 at 2 p.m. in which the petitioners society was competing in the bid by offering bid money of Rs. 2,30,000/- per annum. The other party namely; Shri Ksh. Saratchandra Singh of Kakching Turel Wangmataba did not offer any bid. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal therefore accepted the bid of the petitioners offer and forwarded to the Government for a decision/confirmation in terms of Rule 41 of the Manipur Fishery Rules, 1971 at an earlier date by its letter dated 16th August 96. The bid of the petitioners society was accompanied with the earnest money amounting to Rs. 52,920/-. However, by impugned order dated 26-2-97, the Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Manipur instead of taking action under Rule 41 of the Fishery Rules either confirming rejection of the auction sale, forfeited the security deposit amounting to Rs. 52,920/- purportedly in exercise of power under Rule 32 of the Fishery Rules. This was clearly not permissible. 3. In the letter dated 16th August 95, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal specifically mentioned that the Government should take a decision confirming rejecting the bid interims of Rule 41 of the Fishery Rules. 4. Rule 41 of the rules deals with confirmation of sale on reference by Deputy Commissioner and sale shall not become final unless confirmed by the Government. 3. In the letter dated 16th August 95, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal specifically mentioned that the Government should take a decision confirming rejecting the bid interims of Rule 41 of the Fishery Rules. 4. Rule 41 of the rules deals with confirmation of sale on reference by Deputy Commissioner and sale shall not become final unless confirmed by the Government. Rule 41 visualises that on the expiration of 30 days from the date of sale or any further period that may be allowed by the Deputy Commissioner if no application is made for setting aside the sale or if any such application is made and the same has been rejected, the Deputy Commissioner shall make a reference to the Government for confirmation and the Government may confirm the sale unless for reason to be recorded, the Govt. set aside the sale notwithstanding that no application has been made. It further provides that sale shall not be final unless confirmed by the Government. Rule 41, therefore postulates that Government shall confirm the sale and if the sale is not confirmed, the decision must be supported with reasons. The contents of the Rule if read between the lines, confirmation is a rule and rejection is an exception. 5. In the instant case, instead of exercising its power vested in it under Rule 41 either confirming the sale or rejecting the sale, the Govt. has jumped to the conclusion and took the shelter under provision of Rule 32 and decides to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the petitioners society by its order dated 26-2-1997. This appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power. 6. Counter on behalf of the respondents has been filed. Since it has not been enlightened as to what has happened to the fishery in question after the impugned order dated 26th Feb. 97 and the impugned order dated 14th March, 97 has been passed, this Court directed the learned Govt. Advocate Mr. Shyamkishore to receive further instruction. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate submitted a letter dated 31st Jan. 98 of D.C. Thoubal, stating that the fishery in question has been settled in favour of the Secretary, Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary paddy-cum-pisciculture Committee but the final settlement of the same has yet not been made for want of security deposit of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Also from the order dated 28th Feb. 98 of D.C. Thoubal, stating that the fishery in question has been settled in favour of the Secretary, Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary paddy-cum-pisciculture Committee but the final settlement of the same has yet not been made for want of security deposit of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Also from the order dated 28th Feb. 97 passed by the Secretary, Revenue accompanied by letter dated 31st Jan. 98, it appears that the Government has exercised its power vested under proviso of the Rule 25 of the Fishery Rules and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal to grant lease of fishery in question to the Secretary, Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary paddy-cum-pisciculture Committee. At the outset, I shall constrain to observe that the aforesaid order of 28th Feb. 97 is in flagrant violation of the direction issued by this Court on 18-11-94 while disposing of Civil Rule No. 1147/97 as referred to above. 7. This apart, Rule 25 of the Fishery Rules visualises that the Government fisheries to be sold by auction. In the instant case, the Secretary, Revenue Department has not at all tried to sell the fishery by public auction as mandated under Rule 25 of the Rules. Proviso to Rule 25 empowering the Government to adapt other mode for sale is subject to reasons to be recorded in a special cases. No reason has been recorded as to why the Government has opted to exercise the proviso of Rule 25 in the letter dated 28th Feb. 1997. If that is so, it amounts to the abuse of the process of power. Such order cannot stand the test of law in a democratic country like ours governed by the Rule of Law. 8. There is yet another reason for which the order dated 28th Feb. 1997 is not sustainable. In public auction held on 9-8-96, petitioner offered bid of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal. Instead of confirming the sale, the Government resorted to exercising the power under proviso to Rule 25 of the Rules and sought to settle the Fishery with the Secretary, Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary paddy-cum-pisciculture Committee with only Rs. 1,72,500/-. This would result in huge loss of the revenue to the public Exchequer. Public authorities possess power to use for public interest but not to abuse. It clearly appeared from the letter dated 31st Jan. 1,72,500/-. This would result in huge loss of the revenue to the public Exchequer. Public authorities possess power to use for public interest but not to abuse. It clearly appeared from the letter dated 31st Jan. 98 of Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal that fishery in question could not be settled with the Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary for want of Security Deposits. In this view, no rights have been accrued to them. 9. For the reasons aforestated, the impugned order dated 25th Feb. 1997 passed by the Secretary, Revenue cancelling the security deposited amount of Rs. 52,920/- by the petitioners Society (Annexure-A/4) and the impugned order dated 14th March 97 (Annexure-A/5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal cancelling the security deposited amount of Rs. 52,920/- by the petitioners Society and the order dated 28th Feb. 97 directing to settle the fishery in question to the Hayel Hangoon Beneficiary paddy-cum-pisciculture Committee in exercise of power conferred by the proviso of Rule 25 of the Fishery Rules are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall deposit one fourth of the revenue for full term of the settlement of the bid to the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal within one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal shall settle the aforesaid fishery in favour of the petitioners Society in terms of this direction. In the event of petitioner defaulted in depositing the revenue as aforesaid within the stipulated time, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal shall sell the said fishery by public auction and in that event, the money deposited by the petitioner as security deposit shall be forfeited. If, however, the fishery is put to fresh auction sale, the petitioners Society shall also be allowed to bid. It is made clear that the lease period shall be reckon from the date of fresh settlement. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.