The issue relates to a settlement of the fishery under the control and management of the Fisheries Development Corporation. By a communication dated 31.3.99 the Bamianoha Min Mahal belonging to Corporation after completion of terms on 31.3.99, settled the said fishery with respondent No, 3 for a period of 5 years with effect from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2004 subject to execution of the agreement specified in the communication.In terms of the aforesaid communication the respondent No.3 accepted the same and executed the agreement. 2. The petitioner as a registered fishery co-operative society, which also aspired for settlement of the fishery and accordingly submitted its application for settlement by its applications dated 19.3.99 vide Annexure C and D to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, it being a co-operative society which possessed experience and expertise was entitled for consideration for lease of the fishery; but instead of considering its application, an order of settlement was passed in favour of respondent No.3 which is assailed in this writ petition as being arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim of the petitioner. The respondents also submitted their affidavit. 3. Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that under the accepted norms, more particularly on the basis of the policy decision of the Corporation, the duty was cast on the respondents to settle the fishery by inviting tender and any other method of settlement is not contemplated under the scheme. Settlement with an individual without adhering to the tender system is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Shri Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel, further submitted that the impugned order was purely an order of direct settlement and not an order of extension. 4. Mr. NM Lahiri, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, referring to Annexure C and D which were relied by the petitioner claiming for settlement, submits that there was no claim before the Corporation for settlement of the fishery by the petitioner. Annexure C was only the claim as made before the Minister of Fisheries and not the claim before the Corporation. Referring to Annexure D, Mr. Lahiri has submitted that the claim dated 19.3.99 contained only some allegation against respondent No.3. The said claim cannot be treated as claim for settlement. 5. Annexure C was only the claim as made before the Minister of Fisheries and not the claim before the Corporation. Referring to Annexure D, Mr. Lahiri has submitted that the claim dated 19.3.99 contained only some allegation against respondent No.3. The said claim cannot be treated as claim for settlement. 5. Mrs A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the Fishery Development Corporation has the authority to manage and control the fisheries transferred by the Govt. The fishery in question is a Govt registered fishery transferred to the Corporation and it was within the authority of Corporation to enter into contract with individuals, co­operative societies, companies, Corporation and Govt agencies in procuring, processing, storing, distributing, transporting and sale of fish. The Corporation has the power to settle the fisheries by inviting tenders and also possesses the necessary power of direct settlement of a fishery under its management, more J so in the absence of any form of prohibition under the scheme of the Corporation. Mrs Hazarika referring to the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association, referred to clause 143 of the Articles of Association and submitted that any of the directives, instructions are binding on the Corporation. Clause 143 of the Articles of Association reads as follows : “143. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the Governor may from time to time issue such directives or instructions as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the company. The company shall give immediate effect to the directives or instructions so issued." In these circumstances Mrs Hazarika supported the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in extending the settlement of fishery with respondent No. 3. Whether the impugned order is an order of direct settlement or an order of extension is of little consequence when the very decision making process has come into the fore. 7. The order of settlement dated 31.3.99 was purportedly issued in the name of the Corporation on an application submitted by the respondent No. 3 on 18:3.99. The application was submitted by respondent No. 3 before the Minister In-charge Fisheries, which was received in his office vide Dy No. 34 of 1999 dated 18.3.99. In the said application the respondent No.3 referred to the settlement period from 1994-95 to 1998-99 which was to expire on 31.3.99. The application was submitted by respondent No. 3 before the Minister In-charge Fisheries, which was received in his office vide Dy No. 34 of 1999 dated 18.3.99. In the said application the respondent No.3 referred to the settlement period from 1994-95 to 1998-99 which was to expire on 31.3.99. It was stated inter alia that though he incurred immense loss due to natural calamities, the applicant did not default in payment of the due installments and in fact cleared the dues of the fishery in question to the Corporation. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 requested the Minister for extension of the lease of the fishery by another five years. On the bocly of the application itself, the Minister ordered the Deputy Secretary, Fisheries, as follows: “The application belongs to Scheduled Castes community and is an actual fisherman by occupation. Fishing is his sole occupation and is a sitting lessee. Forwarded to the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation for settling the fishery for 5 years on 10% increased rate.” 8. On the aforesaid communication the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Fishery Department, by his communication dated 19.3.99 addressed to the Managing DirectorrAssam Fisheries Development Corporation for extension of the fishery as recommended by the Minister of Fisheries. From the record, it appears that the matter was processed in the office of the Corporation, thereafter the Managing Director placed the matter before the Chairman of the Corporation for order of extension and the Chairman in turn accepted the request without applying its independent mind and without placing the matter before the Board. 9. From the facts stated above, it appears that the order of settlement was made at the behest of the Minister. Interestingly, the application of the petitioner for a direct settlement was also received by the Minister who forwarded it to the Managing Director for consideration of the claim dated 17.3.99. The Hon'ble Minister to that effect, also sent the personal note dated 17.3.99 which was received by the Corporation on 18.3.99. 10. From the facts it appears that the Corporation acted upon the communication sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Assam^ along with the note of the Minister dated 17.3.99. The Corporation did not apply its own mind and only acted on the direction issued by the State authority. 11. 10. From the facts it appears that the Corporation acted upon the communication sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Assam^ along with the note of the Minister dated 17.3.99. The Corporation did not apply its own mind and only acted on the direction issued by the State authority. 11. Mrs Hazarika, the learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Corporation in accepting the request of the Govt. Under clause 143 of the Articles of Association, since the Corporation is authorised to act as such. 12. The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its own independent corporate existence. It is not an appendage of the Govt. Clause 143 of the Articles of Association speaks of the power of issuing general direction by the Govt in regard to / the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the company. The instructions and directions are referable only to the general activities of the company, the management of the administrative affairs of the company as well as the financial affairs of the company without undermining the existence of the company. The conduct of business and affairs of the company cannot be extended to the extent of settlement and extension of individual fishery as was done in this case. 13.1 have also indicated the manner in which the Hon'ble Minister concerned dealt with the matter and accepted application of the respondent No.3, ie as a settling authority, that too without making any effort to ascertain the veracity of the statement of facts made by the said respondent as to the affairs of his business. The power of administration, management and control of the Corporation property including the fishery in question was vested on the Corporation, whereas the said power was exercised by an outside authoiity. The discretion conferred on the Corpora­tion in the instant case, was exercised by a unauthorised agency and, therefore, the resulting decision is ultra virus and void. Here the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation acted as per the direction of the Minister, whereas an officer of the Corporation was to act as per the decision of the Board. The discretion conferred on the Corpora­tion in the instant case, was exercised by a unauthorised agency and, therefore, the resulting decision is ultra virus and void. Here the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation acted as per the direction of the Minister, whereas an officer of the Corporation was to act as per the decision of the Board. The inter vention of the Minister was the cause and basis of the order of settlement/extension order, though the said power belonged to the Corporation which ought to have acted independently. The Chairman and Managing Director applicated corporate discretion without applying its mind. The impugned action also suffers on the ground of external interference as well as on the ground of bad faith or abuse of power. 14. For reasons set out above, the impugned offer letter/order bearing No. 13/94/4994 dated 31.3.99, under the signature of the Managing Director, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd, for managing the Barmanoha Meen Mahal with respondent No. 3 is hereby set aside and quashed. 15. Before parting with, a mention may be made about a disturbing trend set in by the official of the respondents/Corporation in the matter of furnishing c the copy of the order. In this case, an order of settlement was made on 31.3.99; but the copy of the said order was not furnished to the petitioner even on the date when he filed the writ petition. The Court had to intervene and pass an order to the Corporation for furnishing a copy of the said order of settlement. The Managing Director of the Corporation has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondent/ Corporation, who in paragraph 9 of the affidavit, admitted that the certified copy of the order was not supplied to the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner while applying for the certified copy of the order, did not supply the requisite folio paper; but it is too feeble a plea for justification. What was the compelling reason that prevented the authority from furnishing the copy of the order without the folio? This is not the only instance. The Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is entrusted with a public duty and the public trust. What was the compelling reason that prevented the authority from furnishing the copy of the order without the folio? This is not the only instance. The Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is entrusted with a public duty and the public trust. It is not to behave like that of an ordinary litigant and harass a citizen in such a manner and for that matter, all public servants are meant for public duties and public service. Their loyalty is to the public office which he they hold(s) in trust and is not to be confined to any individual person. Transparency and accountability are the hall mark of public service. No public servant should arrogate unto himself/herself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. 16. There is a species of Tort which is known as misfeasance in public office. Malicious use of power, deliberate maladministration and are like other unlawful acts of causing inconvenience and injuries and form misfeasance in public office. Misuse of power by a public officer is an actionable tort, which makes the public servant liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong doing (Ref Common Cause, A Regd Society vs. Union of India & others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 ); Shivshagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & others, (1996) 6 SCC 558 . The respondents Nos 1 and 2 are accordingly saddled with a cost of Rs.500 (Rs five hundred) only. The Corporation in turn is directed to recover the said amount from the erring officials responsible. 17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.