JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Janardan Singh Yadav learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur, withdrawing the approval granted in favour of petitioner dated 3rd June, 2006 and the order dated 1st April, 2008 and 4th April, 2008 approving the fishery lease in favour of respondent No. 5. 4. Brief facts of the case for deciding the writ petition are; plot No. 198 area 0.760 Hectare is a pond situate in Village Firojpur, Pargana & Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur. The petitioner is a resident of Village Firojpur and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The Sub Divisional Officer approved the fishery lease in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per annum vide his order dated 3rd June, 2006. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 to the Sub Divisional Officer, against the approval of lease in favour of the petitioner. On the complaint, a report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar to the effect that in the auction, the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995 has not been followed since there are several persons belonging Machhua Community in the village. It was also reported that no proof of munadi or publication in newspaper are in the file. A notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the approval be not cancelled. The petitioner filed an objection stating that auction in favour of petitioner was made after following the procedure prescribed. It was also stated that in spite of repeated requests, the lease has not yet been registered. The Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2008 withdrew the approval dated 3rd June, 2006 and directed for fresh steps for settlement of pond. It was also stated that in spite of repeated requests, the lease has not yet been registered. The Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2008 withdrew the approval dated 3rd June, 2006 and directed for fresh steps for settlement of pond. The Sub Divisional Officer gave two reasons for withdrawing the approval, firstly that there is no material to prove that prior to auction wide publicity was made and secondly the petitioner was a Scheduled Caste who does not come in the eligibility since preference is to be given to the persons of Machhua Community. Subsequent to order dated 10th March, 2008, the Sub Divisional Officer held proceedings on 24th March, 2008 for fresh settlement. The highest bid was given by the respondent No. 5 of Rs. 6,000/- per annum. Consequently, a lease was executed in favour of respondent No. 5 on 1st April, 2008. The respondent No. 5 claims to be a person belonging to fishing community. It was further stated that petitioner also filed a suit on 21.1.2008 in the Court of Civil Judge for injunction. The respondent No. 5 was impleaded on an application filed by respondent No. 5 himself vide order dated 16th April, 2008. The petitioner was also permitted to amend the writ petition by the order of the same date i.e. 16th April, 2008. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 10th March, 2008 as well as subsequent settlement in favour of respondent No. 5, contended that there was no ground to recall the approval in favour of the petitioner. He further contends that fresh settlement has been granted in favour of respondent No. 5 who claims to be a Cooperative Society. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied on paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995 to the effect that lease can be granted to a person belonging to Machhua Community of the Nyay Panchayat only when there is no person available in the village who is desirous to take the lease. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in preference to the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste and resident of the same village, the grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 5 who belongs to another village namely Shavaz Kuli is not in accordance with the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in preference to the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste and resident of the same village, the grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 5 who belongs to another village namely Shavaz Kuli is not in accordance with the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the approval granted in favour of petitioner was withdrawn since there was no proper publication at the time of approval in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent No. 5 belongs to Machhua Community and he being available for taking the lease, the petitioner was not eligible person under the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995. 8. I have considered the submission of the parties and perused the record. The grant of lease was approved in favour of the petitioner by order dated 3rd June, 2006. A complaint was submitted by respondent No. 4 on which, a report was called from Naib Tehsildar who submitted his report on 12.12.2007, which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which indicates that Naib Tehsildar recommended for cancellation of lease in favour of the petitioner basically on two grounds, firstly, there was no material that there was proper publication of the date of auction and secondly, there being persons belonging to Machhua Community available, the petitioner was not an eligible person. The Sub Divisional Officer in the order dated 10th March, 2008 gave two reasons for withdrawing the approval firstly there is no material that prior to auction, appropriate publication was made. 9. A Full Bench of this Court in 2006 (1) ALJ 376, Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P., has laid down that before settling the fishery lease, proper publicity of the same is to be done. The Sub Divisional Officer being satisfied that there was no publicity of the lease, he was not powerless to withdraw the approval. Consequently, the Sub Divisional Officer took the view that persons of Machhua Community were available, the grant of lease in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste was not correct. 10. The Sub Divisional Officer being satisfied that there was no publicity of the lease, he was not powerless to withdraw the approval. Consequently, the Sub Divisional Officer took the view that persons of Machhua Community were available, the grant of lease in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste was not correct. 10. The submission which has been much pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when a Scheduled Caste candidate of the vilage in question where the pond is situate is available, a person belonging to Machhua Community of the concerned Nyay Panchayat or Block is not an eligible person and cannot be preferred. 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents to the contrary is that a person of Machhua Community belonging to the village in question shall have first preference but thereafter a person belonging to Machhua Community of the concerned Nyay Panchayat and thereafter of the concerned Block, will be preferred to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of the village in question. 12. 12. For appreciating the above submission, it is relevant to quote the relevant provision in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 providing for preference : ^^LrEHk&1 nks gsDVs;j rd ds {ks=Qy ds rkykcksa] iks[kjksa] ehukk;ksa ds fy;sA ¼v½ lEcfUèkr xk¡o lHkk {ks= ds eNqok leqnk; ¼eNqok] dsoV] fu"kkn] eYykg] fcUn] èkhoj] èkhej] d;i] ckFke] jk;dokj] eka>h] xksfM+;k] ¼dgkj½ rqjsgk dk rqjkgk vkfnA½ ¼c½ lEcfUèkr U;k; iapk;r ds eNqok leqnk; ¼eNqok] dsoV] eYykg] fu"kkn] fcUn] èkhoj] èkhej] d;i] ckFke] jk;dokj] eka>h] xksfM+;k] ¼dgkj½ rqjsgk ;k rqjkgk vkfnA ¼l½ lEcfUèkr fodkl [k.M ds eNqok leqnk; ¼eNqok] dsoV] eYykg] fu"kkn] fcUn] èkhoj] èkhej] d;i] ckFke] jk;dokj] eka>h] xksfM+;k] ¼dgkj½ rqjsgk ;k rqjkgk vkfnA 2- ¼v½ lEcfUèkr xk¡o lHkk {ks= ds vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDrA ¼c½ lEcfUèkr U;k; iapk;r ds vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDrA ¼l½ lEcfUèkr fodkl [k.M ds vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds O;fDrA 3- ¼v½ lEcfUèkr xk¡o lHkk {ks= dh eNqok leqnk; dh lgdkjh lfefr tks lgdkfjrk fu;eksa ds vUrxZr xfBr o iathd`r gks vkSj tks eRL; ikyu foHkkx }kjk ekU;rk izkIr gksaA ¼c½ lEcfUèkr U;k; iapk;r {ks= dh eNqok leqnk; dh lgdkjh lfefr tks lgdkfjrk fu;eksa ds vUrxZr xfBr o iathd`r gksaA ¼l½ lEcfUèkr fodkl [k.M Lrj dh eNqok lgdkjh lfefr tks lgdkfjrk fu;eksa ds vUrxZr xfBr o iathd`r gksaA 4- ¼v½ lEcfUèkr xk¡o lHkk {ks= dh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr dh iathd`r lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ tks lgdkfjrk fu;ekuqlkj xfBr ,oa iathd`r gksaA ¼c½ lEcfUèkr U;k; iapk;r {ks= dh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr dh iathd`r lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ tks fu;ekuqlkj xfBr ,oa iathd`r gksaA ¼l½ lEcfUèkr fodkl [k.M dh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr dh iathd`r lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ tks lgdkfjrk fu;ekuqlkj xfBr ,oa iathd`r gksaA 5- izfrcUèk ;g gS fd& ¼1½ lEcfUèkr xk¡o lHkk {ks= dh fdlh bPNqd O;fDr ds u gksus ij lEcfUèkr U;k; iapk;r rRipkr~ lEcfUèkr fodkl [k.M vkSj rRipkr~ lEcfUèkr tuin ds bPNqd O;fDr dks iV~Vk fn;k tk ldsxkA ¼2½ ;fn ojh;rk Øe esa ,d ls vfèkd O;fDr@lfefr;k¡ gksa rks muds izkFkZuk&i= izkIr dj fuèkZurk@vko;drk ds vkèkkj ij iV~Vk vkoaVu lfefr }kjk fopkj dj iV~Vk fu"ikfnr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼3½ ;fn uhykeh esa fdlh ekeys esa fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk LFkxuknsk ikfjr dj fn;k tkrk gS rks ml nkk esa ijxukfèkdkjh }kjk nSfud HkkM+s ij eRL; vk[ksV dh O;oLFkk dh tk;sxhA ;gk¡ bldk mYys[k izklafxd gksxk fd mijksDr O;oLFkk esa fuèkkZfjr ojh;rk Øe ds vuqlkj izklafxdrk ds vkèkkj ij leqfpr vxzsrj dk;Zokgh lqfufpr dh tk;sA 13. A perusal of the Scheme of the Government Order dated 17th October, 1995 as quoted above, indicate that the person of Machhua Community of the village has first preference who are in first category. The persons belonging to Machhua Community of concerned Block are also included in first category at Item No. (b), thus, the first category of the preference is persons of Machhua Community belonging to (a) Village Gaon Sabha, (b) concerned Nyay Panchayat, (c) concerned Block. 14. From the material on record, it is clear that although petitioner is a resident of Village Firojpur Kuli where the pond is situate but the respondent No. 5 is a person belonging to Block Mohammadabad which is concerned Block and from the Machhua Community. A person belonging to Scheduled Caste of the village in question is mentioned at category 2 (a) and, similarly, Scheduled Caste of concerned Block are at 2(c), herein the petitioner and respondent No. 5 whose names are included at category 2(a) and 1 (c) are claiming rights. 15. Relying on paragraph 5 learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since a person belonging to the same village although a Scheduled Caste is available, a person of Block even though belonging to Machhua Community, cannot be preferred. 16. It is golden rule of interpretation that a provision of statute have to be so construed as to give effect to the intent and purpose of the statute and all parts of the statute have to be given effect to. The object of Government Order is to give preference to persons of Machhua Community and Scheduled Caste. The preferences are divided in three categories i.e. category-1, category-2 and category-3. All category has three sub categories. In case, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste belonging to same village, has to be preferred to a person of Machhua Community and belonging to the concerned Block, the Government Order would have included category 2(a) in first category itself and all the persons and Cooperative Societies of concerned village should have been included in category 1 and the category would have been thus : 1. (a) persons belonging to Machhua Community of concerned village. (b) Scheduled Caste of concerned village. (c) Cooperative Society of members of Machhua community of concerned village. (d) Cooperative Society of Scheduled Caste persons of concerned village. 17. (a) persons belonging to Machhua Community of concerned village. (b) Scheduled Caste of concerned village. (c) Cooperative Society of members of Machhua community of concerned village. (d) Cooperative Society of Scheduled Caste persons of concerned village. 17. A perusal of Government Order indicates that the different categories have been mentioned according to preference and from paragraph 3 of the Government Order, it is clear that settlement has to be undertaken in accordance with the prescribed preference. In case, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the preferential category have to be re-written. 18. Paragraph 5(1) at best can be read as proviso to the preferences as indicated in the Government Order. A proviso is normally not construed as nullifying the enactment or as taking away completely a right conferred by the enactment. Thus, paragraph 5(1) cannot be construed as changing the preferences as mentioned in the Government Order. Persons belonging to Machhua Community be that of (a) same village concerned, (b) concerned Nyay Panchayat or concerned Block are in the first category and they will take precedence over a member of Scheduled Caste who is in second category, thus, the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste, cannot be preferred to a person belonging to Machhua Community although of concerned Block. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 could not have been given preference over the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ————