JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri K.C. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing as intervener. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanghata District Sant Kabir Nagar rejecting the representation of the petitioner for approval of the proposal for execution of fishery lease in favour of the petitioner over a pond, situated in village Deeppur Tehsil Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar, measuring about 27.944 hectares. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement made in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' the petitioner had participated in the auction on 4.12.2013 for settlement of lease and offered  Rs. 30 lacks for a period of 10 years and also deposited 1/10th amount as required by the Tehsil authorities, receipt of which has been brought on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition but the lease was not executed. Aggrieved by that the petitioner filed Writ C No. 19931 of 2014 (Gramin Machhua Samuday Samiti v. State of U.P. and others) which has been disposed of vide order dated 14.4.2014 with the direction the Sub-Divisional Officer to take a final decision within a period of one months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court. It is thereafter the decision was taken by the authorities on 20.6.2014. 2. While entertaining the writ petition this Court on 24.7.2014 has passed the following order: "Heard Sri S. Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel for the State respondent and learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar on the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.4.2014 passed in Writ C No. 19931 of 2014 (Gramin Machhua Samuday Samiti Deeppur Sant Kabir Nagar v. State of U.P. and others). It appears that for settlement of fishery lease over a pond, situated in village Deeppur Tehsil Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar, measuring about 27.944 hectares. The petitioner participated in the auction being a registered co-operative society of the Gaon Sabha and offered  Rs. It appears that for settlement of fishery lease over a pond, situated in village Deeppur Tehsil Dhanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar, measuring about 27.944 hectares. The petitioner participated in the auction being a registered co-operative society of the Gaon Sabha and offered  Rs. 30 lacks for a period of 10 years and also deposited 1/10th amount as required by the State authorities but the lease was not executed. Aggrieved by that the petitioner filed Writ C No. 19931 of 2014 in which on 14.4.2014 the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to take a final decision within a period of one months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation which has been rejected on the ground that other societies, i.e. block level, district level and State level have not participated in the auction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 which has been noticed by the Sub-Divisional Officer requires that Gramin Machhua co-operative society of the village concerned shall be preferred for settlement of the lease and it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the society of the village, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He also contends that more than one years has passed the Sub-Divisional Officer was sitting tight over matter by not executing the lease hence the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for issuing direction for execution of the lease and it is thereafter the impugned order has been passed. In his further submissions more than a year has passed and due to non-execution of lease the State has been put to loss of more than  Rs. 3 lacs. Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha are granted two weeks and no more time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. In addition to the counter-affidavit, the Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining the reason for not executing the lease or refusing the same earlier. Prima facie it appears due to inaction of the respondents State has been put to suffer a huge loss. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. In addition to the counter-affidavit, the Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining the reason for not executing the lease or refusing the same earlier. Prima facie it appears due to inaction of the respondents State has been put to suffer a huge loss. Put up this case in the additional cause list on 14th August, 2014 showing the name of Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondent. Till 14th August, 2014 no auction shall take place. In case the same has taken place that will not be given effect to." 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation which has been rejected on the ground that other societies, i.e. block level, district level and State level have not participated in the auction. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 which has been noticed by the Sub-Divisional Officer requires that Gramin Machhua co-operative society of the village concerned shall be preferred for settlement of the case and it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the society of the village, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He also contends that more than one year has passed the Sub-Divisional Officer was sitting tight over matter by not executing the lease hence the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for issuing direction for execution of the lease and it is thereafter the impugned order has been passed. In his further submissions more than a year has passed and due to non execution of lease the State has been put to loss of more than  Rs. 3 lacs. 5. Pursuant thereto a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Divisional officer. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner's Society is not approved by the Fishery Department. Further, in order of preference as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995, on which basis lease has to be settled, the petitioner falls under Category 2(A), whereas, the person falling under Category I was available, therefore, the bid of the petitioner had illegally been accepted and the petitioner has been asked to deposit  Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, in order of preference as provided in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995, on which basis lease has to be settled, the petitioner falls under Category 2(A), whereas, the person falling under Category I was available, therefore, the bid of the petitioner had illegally been accepted and the petitioner has been asked to deposit  Rs. 3 lakhs. The main ground of rejecting the petitioners' application is that preference shall be given to a person who falls under category I of the preferential category provided under Government Order dated 17.10.1995, since the petitioner falls under Category 2(A) and the person falling under Category I was available, mere-fore approval was not granted to the petitioner and direction was given to hold a fresh auction. 6. While assailing this order Sri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer has erred in placing reliance upon the ex-parte report of the Fishery Department wherein it is stated that the petitioners' society is not recognized. In his submission the report is vague and before submitting the report no opportunity was offered to the petitioner. It is also contended that all the members of the petitioners' society are of Macchua by caste, therefore, for all practical purposes it is a society of Macchua community and it will not fall under Category 2(A). It is also submitted that with respect to the pond in question a lease was executed on a very meagre amount of  Rs. 14929/- annually in favour of Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti of which Sri Komal happens to be the Manager whereas for the same pond having the same area the petitioner has offered  Rs. 30 lakhs but he has been ignored. 7. On being confronted as to whether petitioners' society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards the registration certificated which has been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the same which, it transpires that the society has been registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1965'). 8. Learned standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioners-society is not registered under the Act of 1965 as required under Government Order dated 17.10.1995, therefore approval was refused. 8. Learned standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioners-society is not registered under the Act of 1965 as required under Government Order dated 17.10.1995, therefore approval was refused. In his submissions, even if it is assumed that the petitioner's society belongs to the Macchua community only even then it will not fall under Category I or Category B as the petitioners' society is not registered under the Act of 1965. 9. Sri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case society is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, that will not be a fatal for the purpose of approval as the petitioner was the highest bidder. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record the basic question would be as to whether the petitioner's society which is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 was eligible to participate in the auction proceeding or not. For considering the question it would be appropriate to look into the conditions prescribed in the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 which stipulates that society means a co-operative society registered under Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is settled principle of interpretation of statute that once a statute requires to do a thing in a particular manner then that has to be done in that very manner. Here since the Government Order dated 17.10.1995 which operates the field and has got a statutory force being issued under section 126(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Rule 115-A(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, therefore it has to be read in the form in which it is written and has to be complied with in its letters and spirit. In this case, since the petitioners' society is not registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. As the writ petition has failed on the first ground I do not find it appropriate to deal with the other points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in paragraph Nos. As the writ petition has failed on the first ground I do not find it appropriate to deal with the other points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that on 16.1.2010 for a period of ten years fishery lease has been executed in favour of one Sri Surendra Kumar, Secretary Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Dhanghata for an amount of  Rs. 14929/- only for the part of same pond which is situated in Village Dihwa. He has brought on record the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, i.e., resolution and approval to execute lease. From the perusal of which it transpires that the lease for a period of ten years was proposed to be executed in favour of Sri Surendra Kumar over the pond having an area about 14.929 hectares for a meagre amount of  Rs. 14,929/- only. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has offered much higher amount i.e.  Rs. 30 lakhs for a period of ten years, therefore his bid ought to have been approved. 12. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as the purpose of the Government Order dated 17.10.1995, which operates the field, is not to earn money, but upliftment of Machhua communities, which has been upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (99) RD 823 . 13. It is noticeable that the pond is of very huge area covering three revenue villages and two Gaon Sabhas. Part of the petitioner's pond is situated in Village Deeppur, Gaon Sabha Dihwa, with respect to which the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order. 14. This Court in Shyam Kunwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005 (98) RD 361 , has held that Deputy Collectors shall make effort to grant fisheries lease for  Rs. 20,000/- per hectare per year unless there are special reasons for granting the same for lesser amount but while doing so reason has to be recorded. 15. 14. This Court in Shyam Kunwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005 (98) RD 361 , has held that Deputy Collectors shall make effort to grant fisheries lease for  Rs. 20,000/- per hectare per year unless there are special reasons for granting the same for lesser amount but while doing so reason has to be recorded. 15. Taking note of that, it is directed that so far as the pond in question, which is subject-matter of the impugned order, is concerned, settlement of lease shall be made looking into the law laid down by this Court in Shyam Kunwar (supra). So far as other leases are concerned, in case the District Magistrate finds that the leases have been executed on a lesser amount as has been required in the case of Shyam Kunwar (supra), including Sri Surendra Kumar, he shall initiate proceeding for cancellation of the lease after issuing notice to the concerned parties. 16. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it will be open to the petitioner to get register his society under Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and in case his society is registered under Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, he may also participate in the proceeding. The money deposited by the petitioner be returned to him along with 6% interest. The order dated 9.9.2014 passed by this Court was uploaded without my signature inadvertently by the Private Secretary. Later on, this matter has been brought to my notice. The order is being corrected and signed. Now, this order be uploaded and certified copy, if any, on demand be issued to the parties. The earlier order, which had inadvertently been uploaded shall be treated to be deleted.