JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the Annexure-XII order dated 5.11.2004 by which the fishery in question has been settled with the respondent No. 4. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P. (c) No. 4930/04 apprehending the settlement of the fishery in question, namely M/s. Chengajan Krimijan Fishery Samabai Samity Ltd., Dhemaji, in favour of the respondent No. 4 in that case, i.e., M/s. Sisi Srikalijan Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.8.2004 providing consideration of the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 by the competent authority taking into account the respective claim. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4.8.2004, the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department considered the respective claim of the contenders and eventually by the impugned order dated 5.11.2004 settled the fishery with the present respondent No. 4. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that having regard to the reports furnished by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society and the Deputy Commissioner of the District, the Government of Assam the Fishery Department ought to have settled the fishery with the petitioner instead of settling the same with the respondent No. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court on the same cause of action by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 8267/04. There is no dispute at the bar that as in the instant writ petition, in the said writ petition also it was the legality and validity of the same very impugned order, i.e., Annexure XII order dated 5.11.2004 was put to challenge. The writ petition was withdrawn on 23.11.2004. The order passed on 23.11.2004 reads as follows: Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw this writ petition. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. The writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 4. Mr. K.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the face of the impugned order dated 5.11.2004, same is contrary to the reports furnished by the appropriate authorities, i.e., the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society. The writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 4. Mr. K.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the face of the impugned order dated 5.11.2004, same is contrary to the reports furnished by the appropriate authorities, i.e., the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society. He submits that their being an outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 65,032 as per the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 7.9.2004, the respondent No. 4 ought not have been preferred over the petitioner. He further submits in reference to the averments made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition that the petitioner having entered into an agreement on 23.11.2004 with one Shri Hareswar Basumatary to run the fishery in question, the settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 4 is required to be interfered with. 5. As regards the above quoted order of this Court by which the earlier writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner has made the following statement in paragraph 27 of the writ petition: 27. That the petitioner society state that as the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Fishery Department illegally and arbitrarily and also on some extraneous consideration vide settlement order dated 5.11.2004 (Annexure XII to the writ petition) made illegal settlement in respect of the fishery in question in favour of the respondent Society by denying the bona fide claim of the petitioner society for such settlement. They had to approach this Hon'ble High Court by filing a writ petition and their said writ petition was registered as W.P. (C) No. 8267/04. As in the meantime the petitioner society filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 8/2004 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Dhemaji in respect of the same subject matter, the petitioner society had to withdraw their aforesaid writ petition and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.11.2004 closed the W.P.(C) No. 8267/04 on withdrawal with a liberty to the petitioner society to approach this Hon'ble Court again if so advised. 6. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. She submits that if the view taken by the competent authority towards settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 4 is plausible view, the writ Court in exercise of its power of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not substitute the same even if another view is possible. 7. Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition submits that in view of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8267/04 without there being any liberty to file a fresh writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on that score alone. Elaborating his argument on the preliminary objection, he submits that after filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by way of filing a Title Suit No. 8/04 on 17.11.2004. He submits that the Title Suit was filed without disclosing the factum of filing of the W.P.(C) No. 8267/04 before this Court on 8.11.2004. He has furnished a copy of the plaint which was submitted by the petitioner before the Civil Court. In paragraph 16 of the plaint the petitioner made the following statements: That, the petitioner is compelled to file the suit seeking appropriate relief as there is no alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 8. Throughout the plaint there is no mention of approaching this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8267/04. Mr. Dubey has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court as reported in [1987] 1 SCR 200 Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Ors. to bring home his point of argument relating to the preliminary objection. As in the instant case, in the said case also the earlier writ petition filed on the same cause of action was withdrawn without any liberty. to bring home his point of argument relating to the preliminary objection. As in the instant case, in the said case also the earlier writ petition filed on the same cause of action was withdrawn without any liberty. Dealing with the second writ petition filed on the same cause of action, the Apex Court held that the principle underlying Rule 1, Order 23 of the CPC should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of the writ petition also, not of the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained in the case. The Apex Court went on to observe that it would discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. It further observed that there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit the petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India once again. 9. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court as reported in AIR 1991 SC 661 SP Sahaney v. LIC of India to emphasize on the alleged abuse of the process of the Courts by the petitioner by filing successive writ petition and also pursuing the remedy before the Civil Court. As regards the merit of the case, he submits that so far as the outstanding dues on which much have been emphasized by the petitioner, the said amount has since been liquidated. In this connection, he has referred to statement made in counter affidavit and the Treasury challan and certificate dated 28.9.2004 and 29.8.2004 respectively (Annexures 5 and 6). He submits that from such documentary evidence it is crystal clear that there was no outstanding dues against the respondent No. 4 at the time of making the statement by the impugned order dated 5.11.2004. 10. Mr. K.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the guidelines circulated by letter dated 24.9.1982 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Society laying down certain parameters towards consideration of settlement of fishery Mahal. Clause 1 of the guidelines emphasizes not to make settlement of more than one fishery Mahal with each fishery Co-operative Society. 10. Mr. K.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the guidelines circulated by letter dated 24.9.1982 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Society laying down certain parameters towards consideration of settlement of fishery Mahal. Clause 1 of the guidelines emphasizes not to make settlement of more than one fishery Mahal with each fishery Co-operative Society. He submits that since the respondent No. 4 has already been settled with another fishery, as per the said guidelines they were not entitled to get settlement of the fishery in question. Mr. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the statement made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition as per which the respondent No. 4 by an agreement dated 23.11.2004 has entrusted the fishery to one Shri Hareswar Basumatary. In this regard, he has also drawn my attention to Annexure XIV and XIV(I) documents, the purported agreement and challan. 11. Countering the above argument of Mr. Sarmah, Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has referred to the stand of the respondent No. 4 in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows: 16. That with regard to the statements and allegations made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the same are baseless, frivolous and incorrect. Be it stated herein that the possession of the Chengajan Group Fishery was handed over to the respondent No. 4 Society on 26th November, 2004 vide office letter No. SBC.20/2004 by the Circle Officer of Sissibargaon Revenue Circle. Therefore, it cannot be understood as to how the respondent No. 4 Society could sub-let the fishery in question to another party, as alleged, on 23.11.2004. The petitioner society having miserably failed to obtain settlement of the said fishery in their favour because of their inefficiency, now with mala fide intention trying to make out a case in their favour by misleading this Hon'ble Court by presenting distorted facts before it. 12. Mr. The petitioner society having miserably failed to obtain settlement of the said fishery in their favour because of their inefficiency, now with mala fide intention trying to make out a case in their favour by misleading this Hon'ble Court by presenting distorted facts before it. 12. Mr. Dubey has also placed reliance on the complaint case filed by the respondent No. 4 against the petitioners Society and its office bearer alleging forging of the records and the signatures of the office bearers of the respondent No. 4 Society so as to give a colour that the respondent No. 4 has withdrawn from the fray towards settlement of the fishery in their favour and that the said Society has entered into an agreement with said Shri Hareswar Basumatary. Thus, the respondent No. 4 has filed the contempt case alleging forgery on the part of petitioner in respect of allegation made in paragraph 26 of the writ petition. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials available on record. As regards the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 4, I find sufficient force in the same. The first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8267/04 was withdrawn on 23.11.2004. The order passed on 23.11.2004 has been quoted above. On a bare perusal of the same, it will be seen that no liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court once again on the same cause of action. However, contrary to such a proposition, the petitioner has made the above quoted statement in paragraph 27 of the writ petition, which is contrary to the order passed. 14. I have also gone through the plaint pertaining to the Civil Suit being Title No. 8/04. Admittedly the Title suit was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhemaji on 17.11.2004 after filing of the first writ petition. However, there is no whisper in the plaint about the filing of the writ petition on the same set of cause of action. All these factors would go to show that the petitioner did not act bona fide in the matter in challenging the impugned order dated 5.11.2004. 15. Mr. However, there is no whisper in the plaint about the filing of the writ petition on the same set of cause of action. All these factors would go to show that the petitioner did not act bona fide in the matter in challenging the impugned order dated 5.11.2004. 15. Mr. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SJS Business Enterprise v. State of Bihar and Ors., to counter the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 4. In this decision the Apex Court has held that if by the time the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the earlier proceeding is withdrawn, same will be a relevant factor towards entertaining the subsequent writ petition on merit. In that case what was emphasized is that filing the earlier writ petition or pursuing another remedy such as Civil Suit, etc., could be a relevant factor towards refusing the relief in the subsequent writ petition same should not be the sole criteria. In the instant case, it will be seen that the petitioner apart from filing the earlier writ petition and withdrawing the same without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition, also pursued the remedy before the Civil Court without disclosing the factum of approaching this Court by filing a writ petition. All these factors are relevant factors towards refusal of the relief to the petitioner. I this connection, I may gainfully refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as reported in AIR 2005 Delhi 220 Rajesh Kumar v. Airport Authority of India and Anr. In this case, dealing with a similar question of filing of a subsequent writ petition after withdrawal of the first writ petition without liberty, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that in absence of any liberty sought to move a fresh proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India strikes at the maintainability of the second writ petition since no leave was sought or granted to move a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. It was observed that dismissal of the writ petition stood in the way of any relief being granted in the subsequent proceeding. 16. It was observed that dismissal of the writ petition stood in the way of any relief being granted in the subsequent proceeding. 16. Although the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid preliminary objection, I have considered the matter on merit also. I have perused the reports furnished in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 4. On perusal of the reports, it cannot be said that the competent authority committed any error in the decision making process towards issuance of the impugned order dated 5.11.2004. While it is true that in the report of the Deputy Commissioner an outstanding amount of Rs. 65,032 was shown against the respondent No. 4, but is also on record that the said outstanding amount was liquidated by the respondent No. 4 before settlement order dated 5.11.2004. The competent authority found that the management of the petitioners Society was not efficient as consequence of which the Society had incurred loss of Rs. 2,12,971 during the previous year. On being asked about the veracity of such a finding, Mr. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the petitioner in his usual fairness admitted the same. If that be so, no fault can be attributed to the competent authority in taking into account the said factor which was very relevant towards making the settlement of the fishery. 17. As submitted by Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel that if the decision arrived at by the competent authority towards passing impugned order dated 5.11.2004 is plausible one, the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India will not sit on such decision so as to substitute the same by another decision. It appears that the competent authority took into account all relevant consideration towards making the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 4 and based on such consideration and materials on record, passed the impugned order dated 5.11.2004. 18. Thus, on both counts, i.e., non-maintainability of the writ petition as discussed above as well as on merit of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed