Judgment 1. In this writ petition the dispute relates to the settlement of Jalkars. The petitioner society was originally registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 as Ali Nagar Prakhand Matsyajivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. and after enactment of Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996, it got registered under the said Act bearing Registration NO.BR-06-01-02-F-06/1998 dated 22.4.1998 (Annexure-1) and thereby got converted as Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Hariyat Block Darbhanga for the purpose of its operation in the entire Alinagar Anchal of Darbhanga district. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of the notice issued by the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Fisheries Development Authority, Darbhanga (respondent no.4), vide Memo No.430 Sadar Darbhanga dated 16th July, 1999, contained in Annexure 9, for holding of auction of 68 Jalkar fallen within the said Anchal on 2.8.1999 for a period of three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and also the notice issued by him, vide Memo No.504 Sadar Darbhanga dated 16.8.1999, contained in Annexure 13 fixing 1.9.1999 as the last date of auction for the aforesaid period with respect to the Jalkars, in which the petitioner was interested. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order of the Government, contained in letter no.1111 dated 7.6.1999, issued by the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department (Annexure 7), whereby and whereunder all District Magistrates, Deputy Directors, Fisheries and the District Fisheries Officers have been restrained from making settlement with the Swablambi Society and, further, directing them that if any such settlement has been made, then after calling for an explanation from the erring officer, a report be submitted for taking appropriate action. 3. It appears that the petitioner moved this Court for stay of settlement of said Jalkars, but the said prayer was declined by this Court and later settlements were made, pursuant to Annexure 13, and accordingly, I.A. No.10898 of 1999 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendment of the main writ petition for quashing the settlement of Jalkars for three years i.e. from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and also for addition of parties for which this Court, vide order dated 20th September, 1999, allowed the said interlocutory application and on addition of respondents no.7 to 28, notices were issued to them. Despite service of notice, only respondents no. Despite service of notice, only respondents no. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 27 have appeared and counter affidavits have been filed on their behalf. 4. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties it appears that initially the dispute was as to whether the Swablambi Society can claim preferential right for settlement of Jalkars in question with them without holding of any auction like the other Cooperative Societies registered under the old Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. In support of this, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Annexures 2 and 3 issued by the Director, Co-operative Societies would show that registration and conversion of Swablambi Societies under 1996 Act were encouraged and that such Swablambi Societies were given all the benefits as was given to the old Society and acting on the said promise, the petitioners got themselves registered under 1996 Act and converted as Swablambi Society. However, later the petitioner has been denied of the benefit of preferential right for getting settlement of such Jalkars, though the State authorities are bound by their promise in view of the settled principle of promissory estoppel. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in any view of the matter, the impugned settlement of Jalkars with the respondents cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the petitioner being Swablambi Society was denied by the Government from getting settlement, vide Annexure 7 and thus, they have been illegally and arbitrarily deprived of participating even in the auction. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents contended that the contract in the present case stands concluded and thus the present writ petition is not maintainable against concluded contract and the only remedy is by suit. It was further contended by him that the principle of promissory estoppel is not at all attracted in the present case in view of the fact that there was no decision of the competent authority, including the State Government to give preferential right in the matter of settlement of Jalkars with the Swablambi Society. It was further contended by him that the principle of promissory estoppel is not at all attracted in the present case in view of the fact that there was no decision of the competent authority, including the State Government to give preferential right in the matter of settlement of Jalkars with the Swablambi Society. Such decision for the first time was taken, vide Memo No.2698 dated 27th December, 1999, contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 4, whereby Swablambi Societies have been given preferential right for settlement only in the newly created blocks and that too if no other Co-operative Society exists at such Block level subject to the fulfilment of other prescribed conditions by such Swablambi Society. Further, it has been decided that if there is no society operating in old Block or that such Society is a defaulter and in the same area of operation there is only one Swablambi Society and fulfils all other conditions, then also settlement with such Swablambi Society shall be made on reserve Jama. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned orders of settlement were made before Annexure A was issued. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to draw any benefit from said Annexure-A. 6. On the question regarding validity of Annexure 7, it has been contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents that it did not debar Swablambi Society from participating in the open auction for settlement of Jalkars. According to him, vide Annexure 7, the State Government only issued direction to all concerned authorities not to make direct settlement of Jalkars on reserve Jama with Swablambi Society. 7. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents. Annexure 7 does not at all indicate that the concerned authorities were only directed that the settlement of Jalkars should not be made with Swablambi Society directly on reserve Jama. The State Government, vide Annexure 7, issued directive to all the concerned officers that as there has been no Government decision with respect to the settlement of Jalkars with Swablambi Society and the matter is still under consideration, the settlement of Jalkar with Swablambi Societies should not be made and if any settlement has been made, then after calling for an explanation from the erring officer a report be sent. Admittedly, said instructions have been issued under section 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the same is binding on all. It is, thus, apparent that as per the said decision the settlement of Jalkars with Swablambi Societies till the final decision of the Government has been completely debarred, vide Annexure-7. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, rightly submitted that the petitioner Society, vide administrative decision, contained in Annexure 7, has been arbitrarily deprived of participating even in the auction and thus, the impugned settlements are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. 9. In the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that in view of expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities except in cases where requirement is dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. 10. Thus, in the absence of any reason much less plausible reason for debarring the petitioner from getting the settlement, this Court finds that the impugned settlement of Jalkars with respondents are wholly arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the State was not legally justified in completely debarring the Swablambi Societies from getting settlement and thereby depriving them from participation in auction like others for no valid reason. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned settlements of Jalkars are fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 11. This Court also does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the concluded contract, this Court cannot interfere with the settlement in the writ jurisdiction. It is by now well settled that any action taken against law cannot create any valid or legal right or interest in favour of such settlees and thus, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the respondents cannot claim that any legal right accrued in them by virtue of such settlements and the contract stands concluded which have been made against the constitutional mandate and also the principles of natural justice and that it is a concluded contract. 12. 12. The writ application is, thus, allowed and the impugned settlement of Jalkars made with respondents no.7 to 28 pursuant to the notices, contained in An-nexures 9 and 13, are quashed. However, since in the absence of any interim order one year of settlement has elapsed, the respondents authorities are directed to take steps for settlement of the said Jalkars afresh for the subsequent period, in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.