JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered society constituted by actual fisherman who reside in the revenue villages in the vicinity of Deepar Beel, the large water body, in the Ramcharani Mouza of Palasbari Circle of Kamrup (R) District. The challenge here is to the Notification dated 21.2.2009 (Annexure 23) whereby, 4.1 sq. km. area of the water-body is notified as the Deepar Beel Wild Life Sanctuary, under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act 7). The declaration became operational w.e.f. 25.2.2009, when it was published in the Official Gazette. Petitioners arguments 3.1 The petitioners claim traditional fishing rights in the Deepar Beel and they contend that the Government is obliged to protect their economic rights and arrange for rehabilitation of the fishermen, whose livelihood will be impacted by the impugned notification whereby the water-body is declared to be a protected sanctuary. 3.2 Mr. N. Dutta, the learned senior counsel submits that the Notification issued on 12.1.1989 (Annexure III) under section 18 of the 1972 Act which declares the government intention to constitute the Deepar Beel into a Wild Life Sanctuary, was rescinded midway on 29.5.2002 (Annexure 13) and accordingly it is argued that without a fresh section 18 Notification, the declaration of Wild Life Sanctuary on the basis of the old declaration made on 12.1.1989, is legally invalid. 3.3 The senior counsel refers to the Collector's order of 7.1.1994, where the objection by the petitioner and others including the Assam Fishery Development Corporation (‘AFDC’) were noted and the extinguishment of livelihood of the fishermen were taken into account and it was opined that the declaration of the Sanctuary should be deferred until alternate means of livelihood for the fishermen, is ensured. On this basis the counsel argues that rehabilitation measures must precede the declaration of Sanctuary. On this basis the counsel argues that rehabilitation measures must precede the declaration of Sanctuary. 3.4 For the petitioners, the senior counsel highlights the need for balancing the interest of the livelihood of the fishermen, the protection of the area which is an ideal habitat for the birds and the specific observations in the rescindment order passed by the Government on 29.5.2002 (which noted the positive efforts of the fishermen to protect the birds of Deepar Beel), to argue that this quasi-judicial order of the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, could not have been cryptically reviewed. 3.5 The absence of reason in the change of the rescinding decision taken by the Government on 29.5.2002 is also pressed into service by Mr. Dutta to argue that, the turnaround decision, without any supporting justification, cannot be legally sustained. 3.6 Referring to the requirement of the proclamation under section 21 to be published in the neighborhood of the declared area, the senior counsel submits that such proclamation was never published in the neighbouring area and it is further argued that the publication of the proclamation in the newspapers, is not adequate compliance, of the statutory requirement. Thus, it is contended that the concern of the affected group, has not been addressed by the State. 3.7 The failure of the Collector to undertake the examination of the existing claims, under sub-section (b) of section 22, is projected by the petitioner as a serious infirmity, in declaration of Deepar Beel, as a Wild Life Sanctuary. Respondents arguments 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents submits that the petitioners never exercised any traditional fishing rights, in the Deepar Beel. He further submits that fishing for a few years was allowed on the basis of lease granted by the AFDC. However, the 7-year lease granted on 1997 was terminated on 29.11.1999 and since then and/or even before the lease, the petitioners had never exercised any fishing rights (including the traditional fishing rights), in Deepar Beel. 4.2 The learned Addl. Advocate General projects that the total area of Deepar Beel is over 10.1 sq. km. whereas the notified sanctuary covers the core area of 4.1 sq. km. 4.2 The learned Addl. Advocate General projects that the total area of Deepar Beel is over 10.1 sq. km. whereas the notified sanctuary covers the core area of 4.1 sq. km. and under the impugned notification of 21.2.2009 (Annexure 23), the protection is intended for the core sanctuary area, under the 1972 Act and, therefore, the Government side argues that normal activities in the remaining area of the water-body can continue, without being impacted by the declaration of Sanctuary. 4.3 Mr. Saikia refers to the steps taken under section 18 of the 1972 Act, the appointment of Collector under section 19 thereof and the proclamation made under section 21, whereby, objections were invited through newspaper advertisements dated 31.5.2006. On these facts, the counsel submits that the petitioners had adequate notice of the intent of the Government for declaration of a portion of Deepar Beel, as Wild Life Sanctuary and yet, the petitioners failed to raise their objections, if any, by responding to the notices published in the newspaper on 31.5.2006. He submits further that the two newspapers are widely circulated and, therefore, it should be treated as due notice, in furtherance of the statutory requirement. 4.4 The Government counsel submits that provision of the 1972 Act must be interpreted to advance the objective of the statute and the procedural requirements prescribed under sections 18, 21, 22, cannot be construed to defeat the very objective of the Act and the attempt of court must be to do substantial justice. Therefore, Mr. Saikia argues that since the petitioners' right was limited and was subsisting only during the lease period and did not extend after termination of the lease on 29.11.1999, the petitioners having realized the weakness of their position, deliberately avoided giving any response to the newspaper advertisements. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Addl. A.G. that the current challenge of the petitioners should not be entertained. He also contends that the vicinity of the Deepar Beel is fast developing as it is now within the city limits and in reality, there is no family in the area, who are dependent on fishing. 4.5 Referring to the exalted status of the Deepar Beel, which is identified as one of the twenty-six RAMSAR Convention sites under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 (‘the 2010 Wetlands Rules’) Mr. 4.5 Referring to the exalted status of the Deepar Beel, which is identified as one of the twenty-six RAMSAR Convention sites under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 (‘the 2010 Wetlands Rules’) Mr. Saikia emphasizes that the Deepar Beel is now to be treated as a Wetland of international importance. The learned Addl. A.G. argues that the restriction imposed by the 2010 Rules will automatically apply to the protected water-body and none can claim any fishing rights, in the protected area. Alluding to the fact that Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 (‘the 2017 Wetlands Rules’) has now replaced the 2010 Wetlands Rules and focusing on rule 4 which severely restricts the activities in the protected wetland, the State counsel argues that fishing rights claimed by the petitioners, cannot be entertained on account of the Wetland Rules. 4.6 The counsel refers to the suo motu registration of the PIL No. 3/2017 by the High Court, in pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court issued on 3.4.2017 in the WP (C) No. 230/2001 to project that the RAMSAR Convention Sites are matters of international heritage and, therefore, this court as the jurisdictional High Court for the Deepar Beel, must not allow anything, which would endanger the protected wetland. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 5. The objective of the 1972 Act was to provide for the protection of the animals, birds and plants with a view to ensure ecological and environmental protection. Under section 18, the State Government is authorized to declare its intention to protect any area as a sanctuary which is considered to be of significance, for protection of wildlife or its environment. Whenever such declaration is made, the various restrictions, on entry and exploitation within the earmarked sanctuary prescribed by sections 27 to 33A, gets triggered. The sub-section (2), however, addressees the concern of those to be impacted and requires the government to make alternative arrangements of fuel, fodder and other forest produce, for the affected category. The Collector should inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of rights of any person in or over the limits of the sanctuary, under sections 18 and 19 of the 1972 Act. 6. The Collector should inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of rights of any person in or over the limits of the sanctuary, under sections 18 and 19 of the 1972 Act. 6. When the notification under section 18 is issued, the Collector under section 21, must publish the proclamation within sixty days to enable the affected person, to make written claim on the nature and extent of their rights within the notified area. The publication must be made in the regional language, in the town and village and in the neighborhood of the area. The Collector is then required to expeditiously inquire into the preferred claims and also inquire into the existence of any right (not claimed) as may be ascertainable, from evidence of persons and Government records. 7. The section 24 of the 1972 Act then requires the Collector to pass an order admitting or rejecting the claim to a right in or over the notified area. When the claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Collector under sub-section (2) may either, (a) exclude such land from the limits of the sanctuary; or (b) proceed to acquire such rights or arrange for surrender of such rights; or (c) allow continuation of the right, in consultation with the wild life warden. 8. When the claims and rights are determined, the declaration of Wild Life sanctuary is to be made under section 26A for protection and propagation of wild life or its environment, within the notified limits of the sanctuary. 9. The declaration of the protected area under the 1972 Act, result in entry restrictions and also curtailment of rights in the notified area. The provisions incorporated in the statute suggests that legislative intent was to provide for reaching an informed decision by taking into account the views of the stakeholders. Steps in this case 10. The starting point of the process for Deepar Beel, was the declaration of the Government Intention on 12.1.1989 to protect the water-body but this notification was published decades earlier in the Assam Gazette on 22.3.1989 (Annexure III to the counter affidavit). Thereafter, in order to determine the existence, nature and extent of rights (if any) existing in favour of anyone within the proposed protected area, the Collector issued the belated notice on 22.6.1993. Thereafter, in order to determine the existence, nature and extent of rights (if any) existing in favour of anyone within the proposed protected area, the Collector issued the belated notice on 22.6.1993. The petitioners were unaware of the Gazette Notification of 1989 but submitted their representation after learning of the Collector's notice. A hearing was afforded by the Collector to the petitioners, the Managing Director of the AFDC and also the Panchayat functionaries. Then the Collector passed the speaking order on 7.1.1994 (Annexure 12), where he observed that the Deepar Beel is being converted into a Bird Sanctuary, without ensuring alternative means of livelihood for the affected people. The Collector, thus, recommended that livelihood of the affected group should first be ensured and only then, the water-body should be declared as a Bird Sanctuary. 11. The above opinion of the Collector was considered and the Government noted the objection of the stakeholders and more particularly, the fishermen families. The need for balancing the concern for the environment and the Birds and the adverse impact on the livelihood of the fishermen families, was underscored. The efforts made by the fishermen for protection of the Birds were also taken into account. After consideration of all relevant factors, the Government, under the speaking order of the Principal Secretary, Forest made on 29.5.2002 (Annexure 13), rescinded the draft declaration made on 12.1.1989 and ordered for restoration of the water-body, to its original status. 12. But notwithstanding the above rescindment order dated 29.5.2002, the impugned notification was issued on 21.2.2009 (Annexure 23), whereby 4.1 sq. km. area of the water-body was declared as the Deepar Beel Wild Life Sanctuary w.e.f. the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, i.e. on 25.2.2009. 13. It can be noticed from the counter-affidavit filed by the DFO on 16.12.2016 that the second notification was preceded by the Review order whereby, the earlier rescindment order of the Government, was kept in abeyance and the Collector was asked to re-do the exercise, to consider the claim and determine the rights of the parties, in the protected area. To make the inquiry, the Collector issued the purported notice under section 21 of the 1972 Act and arranged for publication of the notice in two newspapers, i.e., Sentinel and Amar Axom on 31.5.2006. To make the inquiry, the Collector issued the purported notice under section 21 of the 1972 Act and arranged for publication of the notice in two newspapers, i.e., Sentinel and Amar Axom on 31.5.2006. But since no claim or objection was received by the Collector, departing from the earlier opinion expressed by him, the Collector recommended declaration of the sanctuary. Discussion 14. The most significant facet of the first process is, the earlier recommendation made by the Collector on 7.1.1994 to defer the Sanctuary declaration and to explore alternate livelihood for the fishermen. The consequential decision of the Government to rescind the 12.1.1989 notification under the speaking order 29.5.2002 (Annexure 13) is also unambiguous. Yet these well-reasoned decisions were reviewed in the second process, without indicating any ground for the change of stand. More importantly, when the Collector stated that no objection or claims were received, there was no reference to the pending claims of the petitioners and the already made declaration in their favour, noted earlier by the same officer, i.e. the Collector, on 7.1.1994 (Annexure 12). 15. The decision taken by the Collector and the Government in the earlier round were quasi-judicial in nature in the context of the 1972 Act and those decisions of 7.1.1994 and 29.5.2002 were supported by well-articulated reasons. The Collector and Departmental Commissioner formed their opinion and voiced their concern with reference to the materials on record. Such well-considered decisions cannot be reviewed without a similar exercise, by application of mind to all relevant parameters. Moreover, it is illogical for the Collector to say that none had put forward any claim in pursuant the Newspaper advertisement of 31.5.2006, since the inquiry by the Collector envisaged under section 22, also required him to determine the existence of rights as could be ascertained, from the Government records. When the Collector and the Principal Secretary in the earlier round, had already declared the rights in favour of the petitioners, the mere absence of fresh objection, does not permit the Collector to revert from his earlier view, without disclosing why the opposite view is taken by him, on the second occasion. 16. It was earlier opined by the Collector in his order dated 7.1.1994 that alternate livelihood for the fishermen in the vicinity of the Deepar Beel, will have to be provided and on that basis the Government on 29.5.2002 had decided, to rescind the earlier notification. 16. It was earlier opined by the Collector in his order dated 7.1.1994 that alternate livelihood for the fishermen in the vicinity of the Deepar Beel, will have to be provided and on that basis the Government on 29.5.2002 had decided, to rescind the earlier notification. Therefore, the fishing and livelihood rights claimed by the petitioners cannot be brushed aside simply because, the petitioners did not raise fresh objections, in pursuant to the newspaper notices. The absence of reason for the contrary decision by the Collector and the Government, render the decision defective. The Government action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with legal justification and the absence of reason, will surely vitiate the Government decision. Tandon Brothers vs. State of West Bengal, (2001) 5 SCC 664 . 17. The proclamation under section 21 of the 1972 Act is required to be published in the regional language and more particularly in the neighbourhood of the proposed area. But here, non-compliance with the requirement of section 21 is seen and in my perception, the publication of the proclamation in the newspapers is not an acceptable substitute, for the statutory process of publication of the proclamation. The adherence to the prescribed mode of publicity of the Government intent, confers a valuable right to the people affected in the locality and the self-chosen method of publicity cannot be an acceptable substitute for the mode, prescribed by the Statute. Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 and Narindrajit vs. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 157 . Moreover, it is the settled law since long that, if a particular method is prescribed by the Statute to exercise power, any other mode of doing the act will be impermissible. Nazir Ahmed vs. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and Taylor vs. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D 426. 18. The fishing rights claimed by the petitioners in my understanding, is not relatable to the lease granted to the petitioners by the AFDC. On the contrary, only those exercising traditional fishing rights, are entitled to secure lease of Government fishery. Such conclusion finds support from the Collector's earlier decision when he expressed the view that the fishing rights of the people in the neighbourhood of Deepar Beel, needs to be protected before the wetland, is declared as Wild Life Sanctuary. On the contrary, only those exercising traditional fishing rights, are entitled to secure lease of Government fishery. Such conclusion finds support from the Collector's earlier decision when he expressed the view that the fishing rights of the people in the neighbourhood of Deepar Beel, needs to be protected before the wetland, is declared as Wild Life Sanctuary. Therefore, if the Government wants to change its earlier position on the matter, an opportunity of hearing to the affected people must be provided and without affording such hearing, the contrary view cannot be taken on the fishing rights, claimed by the petitioners. 19. In the above context, it would be appropriate to note the averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition, where the petitioners have claimed to have exercised traditional fishing rights in the Deepar Beel and absence of any counter-averments to such claim, in the counter-affidavit of the DFO. It also needs to be highlighted that just because, lease hold right was granted to the petitioners for a few years, the preexisting traditional fishing rights do not get obliterated. Moreover, when settlement under the Fishery Rules can be granted only to actual fishermen, the lease granted by the AFDC in fact, corroborates the claim that the leaseholders (petitioners) are traditional fishermen of the area. 20. The next aspect to be considered is the implication of the identification of the Deepar Beel as one of the 26 RAMSAR sites, which will require protection of the wetland, under the 2010 Wetlands Rules and its substituted version, i.e. the 2017 Wetlands Rules. But the question is whether these rules actually apply for areas protected under the 1972 Act. It is relevant to note that rule 7 of the 2010 Wetlands Rules itself states that the water-bodies which are already protected as National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries, are to be regulated by the 1972 Act. Similarly, rule 3 of the 2017 Wetlands Rules also makes it clear that the Rules will not apply to the Wetlands already protected under the 1972 Act. Consequently, the inclusion of the Deepar Beel as one of the twenty-six RAMSAR site, will not automatically attract the provisions of the 2010 Wetlands Rules or the 2017 Wetlands Rules. Thus, the State counsel's arguments based upon the provisions of the Wetlands Rules in the context of the protected Sanctuary, is not relevant in this case. 21. Consequently, the inclusion of the Deepar Beel as one of the twenty-six RAMSAR site, will not automatically attract the provisions of the 2010 Wetlands Rules or the 2017 Wetlands Rules. Thus, the State counsel's arguments based upon the provisions of the Wetlands Rules in the context of the protected Sanctuary, is not relevant in this case. 21. It will also merit consideration in the same context that, in paragraph 41 of the counter-affidavit filed by the DFO, it is averred that declaration of RAMSAR site will have no legal implication on the Deepar Beel but the same is relevant only to highlight the importance of the water-body and its bio-diversity status. In fact, the State has taken the stand that better protection is provided in the notified Wild Life Sanctuary and such declaration by the State, does not require prior concurrence of the Central Government. What appears from this is that the pleaded case of the State, is somewhat different from what is argued in court. 22. The direction of the Supreme Court issued on 3.4.2017 in the WP (C) No. 230/2001, on the suo motu registration of PIL by the jurisdictional High Court for the RAMSAR Convention site should, therefore, be understood, in the context of the State's decision, to protect the Deepar Beel, under the 1972 Act. 23. One cannot also remain unmindful of the fact that the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority under the 2010 Wetlands Rules was constituted, only on 14.2.2017 and, therefore, there has been no occasion to identify the Wetland or to prepare the brief document to invite objections and suggestions from those who are likely to be affected by the declaration of the protected wetland. Therefore, the intended opportunity for the affected group, is not yet provided. 24. The 1972 Act itself has made provisions for protecting the rights of those to be impacted by the declaration of the Sanctuary and, therefore, the provisions for publication of notice and their circulation in the neighbourhood to enable the affected category to make claim and file objections are substantial rights. Therefore, the procedural requirements which is intended to do justice for the impacted category, to be reduced to mere formality, is unacceptable and, hence, contention to the contrary is rejected. 25. Therefore, the procedural requirements which is intended to do justice for the impacted category, to be reduced to mere formality, is unacceptable and, hence, contention to the contrary is rejected. 25. Following the above discussion, it can be reasonably concluded that the impugned notification of 21.2.2009 (Annexure 23) was not preceded by the required publication of proclamation, envisaged by section 21 of the 1972 Act. The departure from his earlier stand by the Collector, is not supported by any reason for the later decision. It is also not clear why the Government failed to consider the already available materials in the exercise undertaken during the inquiry made by the Collector, under section 22 of the 1972 Act. 26. The law require the State Government to make alternate arrangements to protect the rights of the affected persons but notwithstanding the observation made by the Collector on 7.1.1994 and the consequential Government decision made on 29.5.2002 expressing the need for protection of the fishing rights for the petitioners, no attempt has made to address the livelihood issue, which in my perception, vitiate the process. Therefore, the declaration of Sanctuary made under the notification of 21.2.2009 cannot be sustained in law and the same is thus, quashed. 27. But at the same time, one cannot overlook the strategic importance of the large water-body neighbouring the Guwahati city. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the Deepar Beel should be protected in public interest as it can have a significant positive impact on the environment of the area. Therefore, notwithstanding the above interference, the Government in its wisdom is permitted to arrange for declaration of Sanctuary status for Deepar Beel, by initiating a fresh process and issuing the necessary proclamation in accordance with the provisions of the 1972 Act. It is permitted accordingly. 28. With the above order, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated without any order on cost.