JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (in short, the NIT), dated 17.04.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, for settlement of No. 2 Sootia Brahmaputra Fishery (classified under 60%) for a period of 7(seven) years with effect from 19.06.2006, the writ petitioner (appellant herein) as well as respondent No. 5/- settlement holder, alongwith four other tenderers submitted their tenders quoting different rates. The bid offered by the respondent No. 5 was found to be the second highest and that of the writ petitioner as third highest. The Government of Assam, in Fishery Department vide order dated 19.06.2006, settled the said fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5, he being the second highest bidder, rejecting the claim of the highest bidder, namely, Md. Hanif Ali on the ground that the fishery in question, being 60% fishery is available for settlement to the co-operative society only and the highest bidder being an individual and not a co-operative society, cannot be settled with such fishery. The appellant challenged the said order of settlement made by the Government of Assam by filing writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 3152/2006 basically on three grounds, namely, the respondent No. 5/- settlement holder did not furnish the requisite earnest money in terms of the NIT, the respondent No. 5's co-operative society is not situated in the neighbourhood of the fishery and the settlement holder having already three fisheries settled in their favour, the settlement of the present fishery ought not to have been made in his favour by the authority and ought to have been made in favour of the writ petitioner by following the concept of 'distributive justice'. According to the petitioner, since those relevant considerations were not taken into consideration, the decision making process has been vitiated. 2. The learned single Judge upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, by the judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the settlement holder/respondent No. 5 has deposited the requisite earnest money, that the respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be not in the neighbourhood of the fishery as envisaged in the NIT and that the concept of 'distributive justice' as projected by the writ petitioner cannot be introduced at the cost of revenue. Hence, the present appeal by the writ petitioner. 3. We have heard Mr. Hence, the present appeal by the writ petitioner. 3. We have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as well as learned State counsel, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 4. It has been contended by Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the tender submitted by respondent No. 5/settlement holder cannot be accepted as he has not deposited earnest money as required by the NIT. According to the learned senior counsel, the NIT stipulates deposit of 15% of the amount of first year's revenue offered by the tenderers in the form of call deposit and the respondent No. 5 having not deposited earnest money of 15% of the amount offered by him in the first year but having deposit the said earnest money on the basis of the annual value fixed in the NIT for the first year, such tender paper is defective and ought to have been rejected by the authority. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even assuming that respondent No. 5 has deposited the earnest money as required under the NIT, there being three fisheries settled in their favour, the authority by applying the concept of 'distributive justice' ought to have settled the fishery in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant as admittedly there is no fishery settled with them. According to the learned senior counsel, the settling authority while passing the order of settlement did not take into consideration the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that except the tender submitted by the writ petitioner, the other tenders submitted by the other tenderers are not in terms of the Rules. The settling authority has also did not take into consideration the concept of 'distributive justice' as well as the guidelines issued by the authority regarding settlement of fishery which requires that not more than one fishery mahal should be settled with each of the fishery co-operative society. Mr. Sahewalla has further contended that the learned single Judge has refused to take into consideration the concept of 'distributive justice' on the ground that such concept cannot be introduced at the cost of the revenue, though the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.10.04 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3993/2004 (Pub-Maloibari Mash Bebosayee S.S. Ltd. and Ors. Mr. Sahewalla has further contended that the learned single Judge has refused to take into consideration the concept of 'distributive justice' on the ground that such concept cannot be introduced at the cost of the revenue, though the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.10.04 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3993/2004 (Pub-Maloibari Mash Bebosayee S.S. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.) has made the observation that in the cooperative movement in the grass-root level, the concept of 'distributive justice' is to be applied and the settling authority while passing the order of settlement should bear in mind the requirement of settling at least one fishery in favour of each of the fishery co-operative society. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment of the learned single Judge requires to be interfered with. 5. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents, per contra, has submitted that it is evident from the NIT issued by the Deputy Commissioner that the tenderers are required to deposit earnest money of 15% of the amount of the first year's revenue in the form of call deposit etc. and the first years's revenue having been stipulated in the NIT, the authority has rightly accepted the tender submitted by the respondent No. 5/- settlement holder as he has deposited earnest money of 15% of the annual revenue fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for the first year as reflected in the NIT. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the application of the concept of 'distributive justice' depends on various factors including the number of members of the co-operative society, in question. It has further been submitted that as because there are three fisheries already settled in favour of the respondent No. 5 that itself cannot be a ground for not settling another fishery, as the co-operative society may have a large number of members comparing to the number of members of the co-operative society claiming settlement on the concept of 'distributive justice'. In the instant case, according to the learned State counsel, no foundational facts for applying the said concept including the number of members of the writ petitioner's society has been given in the writ petition, though in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent 5, it has specifically been pleaded that the number of members of the said society is much more than the number of members of the petitioner's society. That apart, according to the learned Counsel, there being no condition in the NIT that the settlement will not be offered to a cooperative society having fishery already settled with them, the settlement cannot be refused to a deserving co-operative society on such ground, more so, when the fishery Rules under which, the NIT was issued does not stipulate such a course of action. 6. In the NIT dated 17.04.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, it has been stipulated that the tenderers must deposit 15% of the amount of the first year's revenue in the form of call deposit etc. as earnest money/The NIT also stipulates the annual value (revenue) of each year including the first year i.e. 2006-2007. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 5/- settlement holder has deposited the earnest money of 15% of annual revenue as reflected in the NIT, but the contention of the writ petitioner is that such earnest money is to be 15% of first year's revenue offered by the tenderers. Such contention of the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be accepted as first year's revenue has specifically been mentioned in the NIT and the stipulation in the said NIT is for deposit of 15%) of the amount of first year's revenue. It is nowhere mentioned in the NIT that such earnest money has to be 15% of the first year's bid offered by the tenderers. The appellant/writ petitioner also could not point out any provision in the Fishery Rules requiring deposit of earnest money of 15% of the first year's revenue offered by the tenderers. Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted and therefore, in our view, was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. 7. Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted and therefore, in our view, was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. 7. The other contention of the appellant is that the concept of 'distributive justice' was not taken into consideration by the settling authority while making the order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 5 thereby vitiating the decision making process. According to the appellant, the respondent No. 5 has already three fisheries under their possession and on the other hand the writ petitioner/appellant has none. 8. The relative equality in treating different persons while granting relief according to the need or reward and punishment according to the merit and guilt is the essence of the concept of 'distributive justice'. There is no dispute in the proposition that in distribution of community property, it should be informed with distributive, fairness and justice. The State is also required to bear in mind the concept of ‘distributive justice' and it must act fairly, justly and reasonably while leasing out the property. However, the application of the concept of 'distributive justice' in the matter of fishery settlement depends on various factors including the factor relating to the number of members of contesting societies. In the instant case, the writ petitioner in the writ petition except making the statement that there is no fishery in their favour and there are three fisheries already settled in favour of the respondent No. 5, has not stated any thing about the number of members of the society. The petitioner even in the rejoinder affidavit filed has not spelt out the number of members of the society, though the respondent No. 5 has specifically pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposition that the membership of its society is much more than that of the petitioner's society. In the absence of such foundational facts, the writ Court cannot enter into the question as to whether the concept of 'distributive justice' ought to have been applied in the present case or not by the authority. Moreover, the guideline on which the writ petitioner/appellant has placed reliance was issued long back and prior to the formulation of the Fishery Rules. Moreover, the guideline on which the writ petitioner/appellant has placed reliance was issued long back and prior to the formulation of the Fishery Rules. In the NIT issued for the purpose of settlement the intending tenders were not informed about the application of the concept of 'distributive justice' by inserting the clause that the co-operative society having fishery already settled, may not be considered for settlement or the fishery co-operative society having no fishery under their settlement, will be preferred. In the absence of such stipulation in the NIT, the authority cannot refuse to pass order of settlement in favour of the deserving co-operative society, on the ground of its already having a fishery settled in their favour. If such course of action is adopted, the same will be in violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT. 9. A single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3993/2004 (Pub-Maloibari Mash Bebosayee SS Ltd. and Ors. v. The State of Assam and Ors.) has only made the observation that the concept of 'distributive justice' is required to be applied in the co-operative movement in the grass-root level and has also noted the issuance guidelines by the Government in the matter of settlement of fishery stipulating that not more than one fishery mahal should be settled in each cooperative society. The learned single Judge in the said judgment and order 08.10.2006 has not recorded any finding regarding the applicability of such guidelines and also the effect of not applying such guidelines. The said decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is, therefore, not in conflict with the decision impugned in the present writ appeal. 10. No other points have been raised by the appellant. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, there being no error or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. 12. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.