Judgement In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16-1-1997 of the Government of Assam in the Department of Fishery, settling the No. 141/142-Baralimari/Chitalmari Fishery in Nagaon District with respondent No. 4 for a period of three years with effect from 10-1-1997 under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and Sri Manowar Hussain applied for settlement of Nos. 141/142-Baralimari/Chitalmari Fishery to the State Government after the period of earlier settlement made in favour of the petitioner expired on 28-11-1996. The said applications were considered and by order dated 16-1-1997, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, the aforesaid fishery was settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 for a period of three years with effect from 10-1-1997 and the applications of the petitioner and Sri Manowar Hussain were rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. When the writ petition was moved before this Court on 3-2-1997, the Court while issuing Rule suspended the impugned order of settlement dated 16-1-1997. Thereafter, an application for vacating the said interim order was filed but was not pressed and was accordingly dismissed as not pressed on 23-6-1997 and the writ petition was heard on merit on 12-10-1999, 14-10-1999 and 18-11-1999. 4. Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the application of the petitioner for settlement of the fishery in question was rejected on the sole ground that Sri Krishna Kanta Sarkar, Secretary of the petitioner-Society was convicted in GR Case No. 1726/89 and sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month by orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon on 28-8-1992. According to Mr. Bhuyan, settlement of a fishery under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries is made in favour of a co-operative society or fishermen for the benefit of the fishermen who are members of the co-operative society and on account of some criminal misconduct on the part of the Secretary of such co-operative society, fishermen who are members of the co-operative society should not suffer. Mr. Mr. Bhuyan submitted that the petitioner-Society fulfilled all other conditions as stipulated in proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries and that the Government ought to have settled the fishery in question in favour of the petitioner-Society. Mr. M. Bhuyan further submitted relying on para 3 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4-society is situated at a distance of 50 kms. from Nos. 141/142-Baralimari/Chitalmari Fishery and is therefore not in the neighbourhood of the fishery in question. In the impugned order dated 16-1-1997, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department has also recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4-Society does not fulfil the condition relating to neighbourhood. Proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries expressly stipulates that a fishery can be settled by the State Government only with a co-operative society formed with hundred per cent. actual fishermen of fishing population residing in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. In Arabindo Das v. State of Assam (1982) 1 GLR 280 : ( AIR 1981 Gau 18 ), a Full Bench of this Court has held that unless all the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries are in existence, the power of settlement under the proviso would not be available to the State Government. Thus, the impugned settlement could not be made in favour of respondent No. 4-Society as it did not satisfy the condition underlying the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries that it should be situated in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. Mr. Bhuyan therefore contended that this is a fit case in which this Court should quash the settlement made in favour of respondent 4-Society. 5. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4-Society, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner-Society as it stood dissolved under S. 32(4) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (for short, the Act). 5. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4-Society, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner-Society as it stood dissolved under S. 32(4) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (for short, the Act). He further argued that it was always open for the Government to take a view that a fishery should not be settled in favour of a particular co-operative society whose Secretary had been convicted for a criminal offence, and in case such a view is taken, the Court should not interfere with the same in exercise of its power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution. He also pointed out that the petitioner is presently having a lease with the State of Assam in respect of a fish farm for a period of seven years from 1-4-1994. The Government was therefore right in not settling the Nos. 141/142-Baralimari/Chitalmari Fishery in favour of the petitioner. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4-Society is not in the neighbourhood of the aforesaid fishery, Mr. S. N. Bhuyan submitted that in the impugned order dated 16-1-1997, the Deputy Secretary, Fishery Deptt., has merely recorded a finding that the fishery in question is not within the area of operation of the respondent No. 4-Society. He argued that "area of operation" and "neighbourhood" are not one and the same thing. Even if the fishery in question is not within the area of operation of the respondent No. 4-Society, the fishery can still be settled with the respondent No. 4-Society if the members of the said Society reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Babul Das v. State of Assam (1989) 1 GLR 263, and the decision of a single Bench of this Court in Mangaldoi Pioneer Fishery Co-op. Society v. State of Assam (1996) 3 GLR 79. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan also referred to averments in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 to the effect that the members of the respondent No. 4-Society who are actual fishermen are residing within a few kilometres from the fishery in question. 6. Coming first to the preliminary point raised by Mr. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan also referred to averments in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 to the effect that the members of the respondent No. 4-Society who are actual fishermen are residing within a few kilometres from the fishery in question. 6. Coming first to the preliminary point raised by Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Society that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner-Society, it appears on a reading of sub-section (4) of S. 32 of the Act that under the said provision if any society fails to hold the annual general meeting of the General Assembly within a period of 60 days mentioned in sub-section (2) or within the period up to which extension is granted pursuant to an application for extension or within the expiry of 20 days from the date on which the order rejecting the application for extension is communicated, the Administrative Council and/or the Managing Body of the society shall stand dissolved from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period. Thus, for the default mentioned in sub-section (4) of S. 32 of the Act, it is not the co-operative society which stands dissolved, but it is the Administrative Council and/or the Managing Body of the co-operative society which stands dissolved. That the co-operative society continues and can institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings, despite, dissolution of its Administrative Council and/or the Managing Body would be clear from S. 85 of the Act which states that every registered society shall be deemed to be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and power to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted. 7. This takes us to next question as to whether on account of conviction of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society, settlement of a fishery in favour of the petitioner-Society can be denied. As indicated above, the petitioner-Society being a registered society is a body corporate as per the provision of S. 85 of the Act and is a person separate from its members and office-bearers. As indicated above, the petitioner-Society being a registered society is a body corporate as per the provision of S. 85 of the Act and is a person separate from its members and office-bearers. For offences committed by the members or the office-bearers of a registered society which have no bearing with the affairs of the registered society, the registered society cannot be denied settlement or contract which is due to it. Where, however, the members or the office bearers of a registered society commit offences relating to the affairs of the registered society, the said registered society may be denied such settlement or contract as such settlement or contract in favour of a registered society may be risky and unsafe. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 16-1-1997 only states that Shri Krishna Kanta Sarkar, Secretary of the petitioner-Society had been convicted in GR Case No. 1726/89, but it does not state as to whether Sri Sarkar was convicted for an offence relating to the affairs of the petitioner-Society. In the absence of a clear finding that the conviction of Sri Krishna Kanta Sarkar, Secretary of the petitioner-Society related to the affairs of the petitioner-Society, settlement of the fishery in question could not be denied to the petitioner-Society only on this ground if the petitioner-Society satisfied all other conditions stipulated in the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries and if the petitioner-Society otherwise deserved the settlement on the basis of comparative merit vis-a-vis other applicants. 8. The last question is whether the Deputy Secretary, Fishery Department, Government of Assam, could have settled the fishery in question in favour of the respondent No. 4-Society by the impugned order dated 16-1-1997 having recorded a finding that the respondent No. 4-Society fulfilled all conditions required for settlement of a 60% category fishery except the neighbourhood. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan is right in his submission that the area of operation of the respondent No. 4-Society is not relevant for the purpose of considering settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries and that the Government has only to find out as to whether the fishermen who are members of the co-operative society concerned reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned. But in the impugned order dated 16-1-1997, the Deputy Secretary, Fishery Department, has not recorded any finding that the fishermen who are members of the respondent No. 4-Society reside in the neighbourhood of Nos. 141/142-Baralimari/Chitalmari Fishery. Instead it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 4-Society has no area of operation and that it satisfies all conditions required for settlement of a 60% category fishery except the neighbourhood. In my considered opinion, unless the Government records a finding that the members of a fishery co-operative society reside in the neighbourhood of the fishery, it cannot grant settlement in favour of the said fishery co-operative society under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries. 9. For the reasons stated above, I quash the impugned order dated 16-1-1997 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department and direct the respondents 1 and 3 to pass fresh orders of settlement for the periods in future in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations in this judgment. It will be open for the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 to apply for fresh settlement for the periods in future and to establish before the competent authority of the State Government that they satisfy all the conditions underlying the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for Settlement of Fisheries including the condition that the fishermen constituting the membership of their respective societies reside in the neighbourhood of Nos. 141/142-Barali-mari/Chitalmari Fishery in Nagaon District. 10. The writ petition stands allowed. The interim order dated 3-2-1997 is vacated. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.