D. BISWAS, J. — This petition under Article 226 has been filed for appropriate directions to allow the petitioner Society to continue operation in No. 129 Haria Dublong Fishery. Their claim is that the Society is a registered Co-operative Society under the Societies Registration Act consisting of 100% fishermen belonging to Scheduled Caste community. The fishery was settled with the petitioner Society by an order dated 19.11.99. The settlement was made after cancellation of the then existing lease by the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation for a period of 7 years ending in 2006. The petitioner Society deposited Rs.4,131/- as security and also paid instalments for the period ending 18.11.2000. The settlement order dated 19.11.99 was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 5828/99. The said writ petition was disposed of on 21.8.2000 quashing the above settlement and the matter was referred back to the State authorities for settlement afresh within a period of two months permitting the petitioner Society to continue during the interim period. The petitioner Society filed a petition dated 5.9.2000 before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Fisheries for settlement of the said fishery with them. But the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2000 (Annexure-XI) settled the fishery with the respondent No. 5 for a period of 5 years ending in 2005 at the existing annual revenue. The settlement order in favour of the respondent No. 5 passed on 23rd October, 2000 by the State Government is in challenge. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the documents on record. Before the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2000 is averted to, it is considered necessary to refer to the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5828/99 for quashing the settlement order dated 19.11.99 made in favour of the petitioner Society. According to the learned Single Judge, Bakijai proceedings had to be initiated against the petitioner Society for irregularities in payment of the instalments. Hence, the learned Single Judge referred the matter back to the State Government for settlement afresh. An abortive attempt was made for reversal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by preferring Writ Appeal No. 380/2000. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition and reply thereto the petitioner Society and the respondent No. 5 made allegations and counter allegations about their competence and eligibility to get fresh settlement. An abortive attempt was made for reversal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by preferring Writ Appeal No. 380/2000. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition and reply thereto the petitioner Society and the respondent No. 5 made allegations and counter allegations about their competence and eligibility to get fresh settlement. However, the State Authority after due consideration passed the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2000 settling the Fishery with the respondent No. 5. The reason in taking the aforesaid decision is reflected in the impugned order. The relevant excerpt therefrom is quoted below:- “………………………………………………. Further, on perusal of the records, it is also seen that the petitioner Society i.e. M/s. No. 35 Pakoria Meen S.S. Ltd., was the earlier sitting lessee of this fishery since 1996 to 28.10.99. But as per the then report, the society was found defaulter of Rs.38,036/-. On that ground, their petition was not considered for giving settlement. Accordingly the Govt have to settle the fishery with another contender i.e. M/s. 129 Haria Dublong Meen Mahal S.S. Ltd. upto 2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Society filed an appeal in the High Court under WP(C) No. 5828/99. Hon'ble High Court in its order and judgment dt. 21.8.2000 quashed the said settlement order and directed the Govt. to dispose the matter within two months giving a fresh settlement on consideration of the materials on records. On perusal of the records, it is also seen that the lone petitioner Society is not a defaulter now and found the Society had cleared their arrear revenues and a clearance certificate to this effect was issued by the concerning authority withdrawing the bakijai Case No. BC. 1/79/80. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has also stated that the Society is eligible for getting a fresh settlement of this fishery. As such in view of the above the Governor of Assam in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules for settlement of fisheries as amended vide Notification No. VFF.10/76/PT.II-A/12 dt. 5.6.76 is pleased to settle the No. 29 Haria Dublong Fishery of Morigaon District with M/ s. No. 35 Pakaria Meen S.S. Ltd. for a period of 5 (five) years w.e.f. 23.10.2000 to 22.10.2005 at the existing annual revenue of the fishery i.e. Rs. 5.6.76 is pleased to settle the No. 29 Haria Dublong Fishery of Morigaon District with M/ s. No. 35 Pakaria Meen S.S. Ltd. for a period of 5 (five) years w.e.f. 23.10.2000 to 22.10.2005 at the existing annual revenue of the fishery i.e. Rs. 39,343/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand three hundred and forty three) only subject to observance of usual terms and conditions laid down in the Rules for settlement of Fisheries. Further, the lessee should stock fish seed in the fishery during the lease period failing which the settlement will be cancelled." 4. It would appear from the above recital that the petitioner Society was a defaulter and not considered for fresh settlement. Hence, the settlement order dated 19.11.99 was cancelled and the fishery was settled with No. 35 Pakaria Meen S.S. Ltd. for a period of five years ending 2005 as it was not in default and found to have cleared the arrear revenues. The decision taken by the State Govt. appears to be purely in the interest of revenue. 5. Considering the above circumstance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid order in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 226. 6. Objection was raised at the Bar about the competence of the State Government in making direct settlement. It was argued that the management of the fishery in question alongwith other fisheries has been vested with the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation by a notification issued on behalf of the Governor of Assam on 22nd Nov., 1995. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in M/s. 129 Haria Dublong Min Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. -Vs-Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2001(1) GLT454.This is a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court delivered on reference of certain vital questions relating to the powers of the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation. A summary of the decision relevant for this purpose is quoted below: - "17........................... 1) Assam Fisheries Development Corporation has the sole authority and jurisdiction to lease out/settle the fisheries which have been transferred or vested with them under Article 8(c)(ii) of tha.Assam Fishery Rules; 2) The AFDC shall have no power to make any direct settlement as per the proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. 1) Assam Fisheries Development Corporation has the sole authority and jurisdiction to lease out/settle the fisheries which have been transferred or vested with them under Article 8(c)(ii) of tha.Assam Fishery Rules; 2) The AFDC shall have no power to make any direct settlement as per the proviso to Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules. The Director of the AFDC shall have the authority to make settlement and for that purpose definite guidelines may be laid down so that there is transparency in the matter of settlement. The need for transparency need not be reemphasised in view of the catena of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. 3) While, laying down the guidelines or resolutions the spirit of the Fishery Rules may be given due to/consideration. Fishery Rules were enacted to provide stimulus the fish production and help the population which is engaged with the occupation of fishing. Under the Fishery Rules preference is given to the Co-operative Societies formed by 100% fisherman belonging to Scheduled Caste community and Mainao community of Cachar. Hence the AFDC is directed to lay down the definite guidelines in the matter so that there is no ambiguity. 4) As the AFDC has been found to have powers to make settlement in respect of the fisheries vested with them they have implied power to pass orders regarding extension of the settlement. We may however like to add here that extension of fisheries creates unnecessary problems and as such definite criteria or parameter may be laid down or some alternative may be found out to give relief to the lessee in proper and suitable cases." 7. The notification dated 22nd Nov., 1995 does not appear to have been issued in exercise of powers under sub-clause (c)(ii) of Rule 8 of the Assam Fishery Rules. Statutory powers of direct settlement or extension of any settlement under the proviso to Rule 12 are plenary powers of the State authority. Delegation of such powers to any other authority would not take away the said statutory powers of the State authority. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned notification on this count does not appear to have any force. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.