JUDGMENT : This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No.3904/2013. 2. Facts in short are these. On 24.5.2013, Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, issued notice inviting tender for settlement of No.2 Sootia Brahmaputra Fishery for 7 years. One of the conditions enumerated in the tender notice was that tenders can only be submitted by Fishery Co-operative Societies constituted by 100% Scheduled Caste people or by actual fishermen belonging to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District falling in Barak Valley. This condition was in consonance with Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (in short “Rules, 1953”). The appellant responded by offering bid value of Rs.1,82,62,805.00. In all, 5 tenders were submitted. Against the above bid value of appellant, which was the highest, the second highest bid value offered by Respondent No.3 was of Rs.1,09,08,000.00. And, although, the bid value offered by the appellant was much higher than that of Respondent No.3, respondent No.2, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department, vide order dated 11.7.2013, settled the fishery with Respondent No.3 for a period of 7 years. This he did on the ground that enquiry report submitted by Deputy Commissioner indicated that members of appellant belonged to Maimal Community of Darrang District. Another ground for rejection of appellant’s tender was that it did not fulfill the requirement of Section 6 of the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 (in short “Act, 1897”). 3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.3904/2013 and submitted that in an earlier round of litigation, this High Court has already decided that all its members belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District falling in Barak Valley. The appellant even referred to order dated 9.8.2006 of the Court passed in Civil Rule No.2093/1995 and contended that this issue has finally been settled in its favour. The appellant also averred that the State Government did not dispute before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4672-74 of 1998 filed against order dated 9.8.2006 about its members belonging to erstwhile Cachar District and this factual position was noted by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30.3.1999. The appellant also averred that the State Government did not dispute before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4672-74 of 1998 filed against order dated 9.8.2006 about its members belonging to erstwhile Cachar District and this factual position was noted by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30.3.1999. The appellant, therefore, contended that it was now not open to any of the parties, particularly the State Government, to raise a bogus plea while settling the fishery that though its members belong to Maimal Community, were not originally from erstwhile Cachar District. The appellant lastly submitted that requirement of Section 6 of the Act, 1897 does not stand to reasoning as it was not relevant for settlement of fishery. The State Government, in reply, defended its action and mainly relied upon the report of Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.3 also by filing separate reply, justified the settlement of fishery by the State Government in its favour. 4. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 28.10.2013, has held that rejection of appellant’s tender on the ground of non-fulfillment of Section 6 of the Act, 1897 was unwarranted. But the learned Single Judge upheld the settlement of fishery in favour of Respondent No.3 on the ground that appellant could not prove that its members belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. 5. As mentioned above, terms of settlement enumerated in the tender notice was in consonance with Rule 12 of Rules, 1953. Rule 12 provides that all registered fisheries shall be settled under tender system of sale and the Government shall settle 60% category fishery with “special category” of Co-operative Societies. According to Explanation 1 of this Rule, “special category” means and includes the Co-operative Societies, Self Help Groups, Non-Governmental Organizations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Scheduled Caste community or Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar district. It is, thus, clear that to get settlement under Rule 12, the “special category” of Co-operative Societies must comprise of 100% actual fishermen of Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. 6. The sole question, for consideration before us, is - whether respondent No.2 could have rejected the tender of appellant vide order dated 11.7.2013 on the ground that its members did not belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District falling in Barak Valley. 6. The sole question, for consideration before us, is - whether respondent No.2 could have rejected the tender of appellant vide order dated 11.7.2013 on the ground that its members did not belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District falling in Barak Valley. Earlier, during the settlement of another fishery, same objection was taken against the appellant that its members did not belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. Therefore, to settle the issue once for all, the appellant filed writ petition i.e. Civil Rule Nos.2093/95 and 2161/95 and the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9.8.1996, held that its members do belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District and now they are permanently residing in Darrang District. The learned Single Judge also categorically held that appellant cannot be denied settlement of fishery by depriving it of getting the benefit of proviso to Rule 12. In that case, the State of Assam was a party. And on other issues, when order dated 9.8.1996 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4672-74 of 1998, the State Government did not deny that members of appellant belong to Maimal Community and are from erstwhile Cachar District. The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30.3.1999 took note of this fact and categorically observed as follows:- “The fact that the appellant society consists of members belonging to Maimal Community of the Cachar District is not in dispute.” 7. The State Government thus apparently admitted before the Supreme Court that members of appellant belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. Not only this, pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, vide communication dated 16th June, 2006 very emphatically directed the Deputy Commissioner not to entertain any dispute in future against the appellant on the ground that its members do not belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. This being the settled position regarding appellant, respondent No.2, in our considered opinion, committed gross illegality in rejecting its tender on the ground that its members do not belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District. We are also unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that earlier finding of this Court about the members of appellant from Cachar District was not authoritative pronouncement, more particularly, when the finding had the seal of approval of the Supreme Court. We are also unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that earlier finding of this Court about the members of appellant from Cachar District was not authoritative pronouncement, more particularly, when the finding had the seal of approval of the Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that the State Government having admitted the position of appellant before the Supreme Court that its members belong to Maimal Community of erstwhile Cachar District, rejected its tender by taking an altogether incorrect opposite stand. The act of respondent No.2 is apparently contemptuous and has caused heavy loss to the State exchequer. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.7.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 as well as order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. We also direct respondent No.2 to immediately take a fresh decision in the matter of settlement of fishery by treating the appellant eligible for settlement. 8. The appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the State Government to the appellant.