JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel representing respondent No. 5. 2. In this writ petition, the order dated 07-01-2019 issued by the Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur i.e. the respondent No. 3, under Rule 8(d) of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 ( here-in-after referred to as the Rules of 1953) confirming the sale of Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal in favour of the respondent No. 5, has been put under challenge. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are these. The Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath district, i.e. the respondent No. 4 had issued a public tender dated 20-06-2018 inviting bids for settlement of fisheries under Biswanath District falling under Baghmara Meen Mahal. As per the projection made in the tender notice, the fishery falls under the 40% category under the Rules of 1953. The Government value of the fishery was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum and the period of settlement was for 07 years. 4. In response to the tender notice dated 20-06-2018, as many as four bidders including the writ petitioner had submitted their bids. However, the bids of the two of the bidders were found to be defective and were rejected, as a result of which, only the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5 had remained in contention in the tender process. The writ petitioner had quoted Rs. 12,01,551/- as annual revenue and was the highest bidder whereas, the respondent No. 5 had quoted Rs. 5,75,501/- and became the 2 nd highest bidder. The tenders were then examined by the respondent No. 4, based on viability and feasibility report called from the concerned officials and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Advisory Committee constituted under Rule of 1953. The Advisory Committee had recommended that the fishery be settled with the 2nd highest bidder, i.e. the respondent No. 5 @ Rs. 5,75,501/- per annum. It appears that vide letter dated 25- 07-2018 issued to the respondent No.3, the respondent No. 4 had forwarded a proposal for settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5. The Advisory Committee had recommended that the fishery be settled with the 2nd highest bidder, i.e. the respondent No. 5 @ Rs. 5,75,501/- per annum. It appears that vide letter dated 25- 07-2018 issued to the respondent No.3, the respondent No. 4 had forwarded a proposal for settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5. By the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 the respondent No. 3 had confirmed the sale in favour of the respondent No. 5 at the rate quoted by the highest bidder and a direction had been issued to hand over possession of the fishery to the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 had also deposited the first kist money. It was at that stage that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 07-01-2019. By order dated 23-01-2019 passed in this case, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 07-01-2018, as a result of which, possession of the fisheries was not handed over to the respondent No. 5. 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 07-01-2019, Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that since it is a 40% fishery, the respondents having floated a tender for settlement of the fishery ought to have issued the order of settlement in favour of the highest bidder i.e. the writ petitioner. Mr. Choudhury has also argued that the Rules of 1953 require a 40% category fishery to be settled with the highest bidder. Notwithstanding the same, on an erroneous interpretation of Rule 13(d), the settlement of the fishery has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 5 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. By referring to the provisions of the Rules of 1953, Mr. Choudhury has argued that the recourse taken by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this case is not only contrary to the provisions of the Fishery Rules but the same was also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. As such, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 and issue a direction for settling the fishery with the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. 3 and 4 in this case is not only contrary to the provisions of the Fishery Rules but the same was also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. As such, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 and issue a direction for settling the fishery with the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, has assailed the maintainability of the writ petition by questioning the locus standi of the petitioner to approach this Court, inter alia, contending that the writ petitioner does not belong to a Schedule Caste (SC) community in Assam and therefore, he was not eligible to submit his bid in response to the tender notice dated 20-06-2018. By inviting the attention of this Court to the letter dated 16-05-2019 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner(R), Biswanath under Memo No. BNF-73/2017/102 addressed to the Secretary of the respondent No. 5 society, Mr. Saikia submits that there is a proceeding pending before the competent authority for cancellation of the SC certificate issued to the petitioner but the said process has been held up only due to the pendency of the present proceeding before this Court. 7. By relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Arabinda Das and Tapasilal Das Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (1982) 1 GauLR 280 , Mr. Saikia submits that the Government of Assam has unfretted powers to settle the fishery directly with any person under proviso to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953 and therefore, no infirmity can be found in the process initiated by the respondent No. 3. 8. Mr. Saikia has also referred to another decision of this Court in the case of Biswanath Kumalia Meen Samabai Samity Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (1998) 1 GauLR 129, to argue that under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953, the Government has the power to extend benefits to deserving persons. He submits that respondent No. 5 is a fishery co-operative society which caters to more than 319 families and therefore, taking note of the larger interest of the community, the order of settlement has been issued in favour of his client. According to Mr. He submits that respondent No. 5 is a fishery co-operative society which caters to more than 319 families and therefore, taking note of the larger interest of the community, the order of settlement has been issued in favour of his client. According to Mr. Saikia, the impugned order has been issued keeping in mind the larger public interest and since, the Fishery Rules confers wide discretionary powers upon the government to issue such an order, no interference with the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 is called for in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the materials available on record. 10. At the very outset it needs to be mentioned here-in-that the proposal for settling the fishery with the respondent No. 5 is not on record nor has the same been assailed by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proposal sent by the respondent No. 4 has merged with the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 and therefore, no separate challenge to the said order is called for. The said submission of Mr. Choudhury is found to be reasonable and therefore, is accepted by this Court. Therefore, let me now proceed to examine the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 07-01-2019. 11. As noted above, there were only two valid tenderers in this case and the petitioner No. 1, having quoted Rs. 12,01,551/-, was admittedly the highest bidder. Notwithstanding the same, the Advisory Board had recommended that the fishery be settled with the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 had send a proposal for settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5. 12. Mr. Choudhury has argued that Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 1953, permits the Government to grant settlement of fishery with a co-operative societies at the highest tender value if the same is within 60% of the highest tender amount. In this case, the respondent No. 5 had quoted Rs. 5,75,501/- which amount was not within 60% of Rs. 12,01,551/- quoted by the petitioner. Therefore, Rule 13(d) would not have any application in this case. 13. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by Mr. In this case, the respondent No. 5 had quoted Rs. 5,75,501/- which amount was not within 60% of Rs. 12,01,551/- quoted by the petitioner. Therefore, Rule 13(d) would not have any application in this case. 13. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by Mr. Choudhury this Court has meticulously examined the order dated 07-01-2019, wherefrom, it transpires that while replying to certain queries made by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 4, by his letter dated 03-11-2018, had clarified that since the bid of the respondent No. 5 is less than 60% of the rate quoted by the writ petitioner no order of settlement of the fishery can be made in favour of the Co-operative Society under Rule 13(d). In the said letter, it had also been mentioned that Rule 13(a) applies to a 60% Fishery and hence, the said Rule also cannot be applied in this case. 14. Since the entire controversy in this case revolves around interpretation of the relevant provisions Rule 13 of the Rules of 1953, the said provision is quoted here-in-below for ready reference :- "13. Settlement of Fisheries with Co-operative societies. - (a) with the prior approval of the State Government not more than 60 per cent of fisheries in a Sub-Division available for settlement in a year shall be selected for sale under tender system only with the co-operative Fishery Societies formed with 100 per cent share holders from member of actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Caste of the State and/or Maimal Community of the District of Cachar and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949. Settlement of all such fisheries tenders of which have been accepted under Rule 5 shall be with the highest tender. (b) The remaining fisheries in the Sub-Division available in that year under tender system of sale, shall remain open for settlement to all communities including Co-operative Societies as referred to in sub-rule (a) above. (c) A Co-operative Fishery Society formed by members of actual fisherman belong to the Scheduled Castes/Maimal Community/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, shall be given option to accept settlement of Fisheries of the category as mentioned in sub-rule (b) above at the highest tender, provided that their tender is within 7 per cent of the highest tender. (d) When the tenders for fisheries falling within the category referred to in sub-rule (b) above are below 7 per cent of the highest tender (i) Co-operative Societies as stated in sub-rule (c) above (ii) Individual members of actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Maimal Community, (iii) Individual members of the Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes who may offer tenders not less than 60 per cent of the highest tender may be given option to accept settlement of the fisheries at the highest tender, in order of preference stated above subject to suitability of the tenderers. (e) When a fishery referred to sub-rule (b) above fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. 50,000 per annum is settled with any individual member from actual fishermen belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes/Maimal Community or Other Backward Classes the tender shall get a rebate of 7 per cent as concession. But when a fishery fetching a tender not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) per annum is settled with any Fishery Co-operative Society Formed by members from communities as stated above, the tenderer Society shall get a rebate of 10 (ten) per cent as concession. Provided that 10 per cent rebate as aforesaid shall not be available to Fishery Co-operative Societies formed with 100 per cent share holders from actual fishermen belonging to the Scheduled Castes of the State and Maimal Community of the District of Cachar if the accept settlement of Fisheries as stated in sub-rule (a) above: Provided further that such rebate shall not be admissible in case any individual or Fishery Co-operative Society of any protected community offers the highest tender. (f) Any tenderer claiming the concession provided in this rule shall indicate the same in his tender."] 15. A careful examination of the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 goes to show that the Advisory Committee was of the view that the rate quoted by the writ petitioner was exorbitant and therefore, to avoid harassment to the general consumers, the committee had decided to recommend the settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5 at Rs. 5,75,501/- per annum. 5,75,501/- per annum. However, by the impugned order dated 07-01-2019, the respondent No. 3, while confirming the sale, has held that the settlement of the fishery be made in favour of the respondent No. 5 at an annual revenue of Rs 12,01,551/- i.e. the rate quoted by the writ petitioner. The question, that would, therefore, arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether, the respondent No. 3 had the power and authority under the Rules to issue the impugned order in the present form. 16. The respondent No. 3 had taken note of the fact that as per the report submitted by the Fishery Officer of Biswanath, the annual gross production of the fishery was Rs. 19,09,215/- and that the respondent No. 5 society has submitted a copy of the resolution adopted on 11-10-2018 agreeing to accept the settlement of the fishery at the highest bid value. Accordingly, by the order dated 07-01-2018, the fishery was settled with the respondent No. 5. The operative portion of the order dated 07-01-2019 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference :- "The advisory committee has decided to select the 2nd valid tender of Biswanth Kumalia Meen S.S. Ltd. at Rs. 5,75,501/- yearly on the basis of viability and feasibility of rates offered by various tenderer keeping in view of the present market price of fishes. However, the Fishery Officer of Biswanath has reported that the annual gross production of the said Meen Mahal may be approximately at Rs. 19,09,215/- yearly. The advisory committee had decided to select the 2 nd valid tender of Biswanath Kumalia Meen S.S. Ltd. at Rs. 5,75,501/- yearly to avoid harassment of the general consumers as the bid value offered by Sri Manoj Kr. Sahani at Rs. 12,09,215/- yearly is exorbitant. As to the advisory committee, the highest bidder might be default in payment of revenue having regard to encroachment of the some portion of beels under the said Meen Mahal. Regarding submission of willingness to get settlement of the Meen Mahal at the highest bid value of Rs. 12,01,551/- yearly only, on the ground that the Biswanath Kumalia Meen S.S. Ltd. is comprising 319 nos. of family and also involved 319 nos. family livelihood on the 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal. Moreover, 319 nos. of unemployed youth of the said 319 nos. of family would be engaged on the fishing of the 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal. 12,01,551/- yearly only, on the ground that the Biswanath Kumalia Meen S.S. Ltd. is comprising 319 nos. of family and also involved 319 nos. family livelihood on the 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal. Moreover, 319 nos. of unemployed youth of the said 319 nos. of family would be engaged on the fishing of the 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal. In view of the above discussion and upon the circumstances, exercising power under Rule 8(d) of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, the undersigned is pleased to approve the 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal, falling under Biswanath district, in favour of Biswanath Kumalia Meen S.S. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner, Biswanath shall forthwith handover the whole beels under 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal by passing settlement order within 7 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of this order copy. Settlement order shall deposit 15% of the annual revenue of Rs. 12,01,551/- as 1st installment in a week. Eviction drive in the beels of 40% Biswanath Baghmara Meen Mahal shall be intimated within 30 (thirty) days. It's ordered accordingly." 17. There is no dispute above the fact that the fishery involved in this case is a 40% category fishery and therefore, the same falls under Rule 13(b). Rule 13(c) of the Rules of 1953 confers power upon the Government to give option to accept settlement of the fishery falling under sub-rule (b) to the Co-operative Fishery Society formed by members of actual fisherman belonging to the categories mentioned therein or the persons named therein, at the highest tender provided, their tender is within 7% of the highest tender. As noted above, the tender of the respondent No. 5 is not within 7 percent of the rate quoted by the writ petitioner. As such, Rules 13(c) would not be applicable in this case. 18. Insofar as Rule 13(d) is concerned, the said provision permits the Government to give an option of settlement of fishery referred to in sub-rule (b) to three categories of fisherman referred to in the sub-rule (d). Under sub-rule (d) such offer can be made if the tender is below 7% of the highest tender. Sub-rule (d) also lays down the order of preference that is to be followed while giving the options. Under sub-rule (d) such offer can be made if the tender is below 7% of the highest tender. Sub-rule (d) also lays down the order of preference that is to be followed while giving the options. Under sub-rule (d) third preference is to be given to an individual member of the Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes whose tender is not less than 60% of the highest tender. 19. From a reading of sub-rule (d) of Rule 13 the criteria of not below 60% of the highest tender will be applicable only in case of category (iii) mentioned under the sub-rule (d) which relates to an individual member but in case of a registered Fishery Cooperative Society formed by members of actual fisherman belonging SC/Maimal Community/ST/OBC, the criteria of quoting rate within 60% of the highest tender has not been made applicable. Instead, rules provide that such co-operative society quoting less than 7% can be offered settlement at the highest tender. 20. A perusal of sub-rule (d) also goes to show that the first preference is to be given to a registered Fishery Co-operative Society and an individual member is to get the third preference subject to his rate being within 60% of the highest tender. Having regard to the scheme of sub-rule (d), I am of the considered opinion that the requirement of quoting rate within 60% of the highest bidder would be applicable only in case of an individual member included in category (iii) of the sub-rule and not for the co-operative societies. 21. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No. 5 is a registered Co-operative Society of actual fisherman within the meaning of sub-rule (c) of Rule 13. Moreover, the rate quoted by the respondent No. 5 is not only less than 7% of the highest bidder but the respondent No. 5 has also agreed to accepted the settlement of the fishery at the highest tender value by adopting a resolution on 11-10-2018. As such, I am of the opinion that the conditions prescribed by Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 1953 has been met in this case for awarding the settlement of the fishery in question in favour of the respondent No. 5. 22. As such, I am of the opinion that the conditions prescribed by Rule 13(d) of the Rules of 1953 has been met in this case for awarding the settlement of the fishery in question in favour of the respondent No. 5. 22. From a perusal of the various sub-rules of Rule 13 of the Fishery Rules, it is apparent that sub-rule (c) and (d) operate in distinctly different spheres and independent of one another. While sub-rule (c) of Rule 13 deals with tenders coming within 7% for the highest tender, in case of a Fishery Co-operative Society, sub-rule (d) deals with those which are below 7% of the highest tender. From a conjoint reading of sub-rules (c) and (d) it appears that in case of a 40% category fishery, even if a tender is floated, the Government would have the discretionary power to give option of accepting settlement of the fishery to a Fishery Co-operative Society at the rate quoted by the highest bidder, regardless of the fact that the rate quoted by the co-operative society is either within or below 7% of the highest tender. 23. After examination of the records, this Court finds that the recommendation of the Advisory Committee was for granting settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5 @ Rs. 5,75,501/- but by taking note of the resolution adopted by the respondent No. 5 society agreeing to accept the settlement at the rate quoted by the highest bidder, the respondent No. 3 had issued the impugned order dated 07-01-2018 awarding the settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5 at the rate quoted by the highest bidder. 24. As noted above, the annual gross production of the fishery has been found to be Rs. 19,09,215/-. Therefore, by necessary implication, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the view expressed by the Advisory Committee that the rate quoted by the writ petitioner was exorbitant. The writ petitioner has not challenged the recommendation of the Advisory Committee or the proposal forwarded by the respondent No. 4 as per the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge thereof, the question of validity of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee need not detain this Court. 25. The writ petitioner has not challenged the recommendation of the Advisory Committee or the proposal forwarded by the respondent No. 4 as per the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge thereof, the question of validity of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee need not detain this Court. 25. The respondent No. 3 has taken note of the fact that there are 319 families that are members of the respondent No. 5 society whereas the writ petitioner was an individual. The respondent No. 3 was, therefore, of the view that settlement of the fishery, if awarded in favour of the respondent No. 5, would generate employment for a large number of unemployed youths who are members of the cooperative society. Considering the benevolent object of the Fishery Rules which is to extend benefit to the persons belonging to the weaker section of the society, no fault can be found with the aforesaid view expressed by the respondent No. 3. 26. That apart, by awarding the settlement of the fishery in favour of the respondent No. 5 at the rate quoted by the highest bidder, the respondent No. 3 has also adequately protected the interest of the revenue inasmuch as there is no loss of revenue for the State exchequer. Such being the position, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 07-01-2019 has also been issued for cogent reasons, as per the provisions of Rule 13(d) and on due application of mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. 27. While interpreting the provision of un-amended fishery rules, the Supreme Court has observed in the case of State of Assam Vs. Keshab Prasad Singh, (1953) AIR SC 309 that no fishery can be settled except in accordance with those rules. By following the decision in the case of Keshab Prasad Singh (Supra) the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arabinda (Supra) has held that the purpose of settlement of fisheries was not only to derive revenue but also to help the weaker section of the society, viz. the members of the SC and ST communities. By taking note of the successive amendments of the Fishery Rules, the Full Bench had observed as follows:- "9. the members of the SC and ST communities. By taking note of the successive amendments of the Fishery Rules, the Full Bench had observed as follows:- "9. The successive amendments of the Rules noticed above, show the anxiety of the Government to give a better deal to the deserving persons, the Cooperative Society formed by actual fisherman and actual individual fisherman by settling more and more fisheries with them. The emphasis in these rules indicate that the Government is more concerned about providing work to the actual fisherman to improve their lot than deriving revenue for the exchequer". 28. Similar view has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in a subsequent decision rendered in the Biswanath Kumalia Meen Samabay Samity Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that the power conferred to the Government under Rule 12, though discretionary in character, is salutary in nature and was incorporated with a view to enable suitable and eligible fisherman for being selected for settlement of fisheries. Although the aforementioned observations had been made in the context of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1953, yet, having regard to the scheme of Rule 13(d), which permits exercise of such discretionary power of settlement even in case of 40% category fishery by laying down an order of preference in favour of the Fishery Cooperative Society, I am of the view that the ratio laid down in the two aforesaid decisions of this Court would be attracted to the facts of this case as well. 29. It is no doubt correct that in a tender process, the highest bidder would ordinarily entertain a legitimate expectation to receive the order of settlement in his favour. However, legitimate expectation is not a right that is enforceable in the eye of law. What is also be borne in mind is that unlike in case of an ordinary commercial tender, a tender for settlement of fishery floated under the Rules of 1953 stands in different footing. In a fishery settlement process initiated under the Rules of 1953, the highest bidder cannot always claim to have an indefeasible right to bag an order of settlement. In a fishery settlement process initiated under the Rules of 1953, the highest bidder cannot always claim to have an indefeasible right to bag an order of settlement. That is because an order for settlement of fishery under the Rules of 1953 is not only required be in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Rules but the same must also aim at realizing the avowed objective of the Fishery Rules. If an order of settlement meets the requirement of the Fishery Rules and is issued for cogent reasons, the same, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be termed as arbitrary merely because the settlement, in a given case, has not been made in favour of the highest bidder. Therefore, having regard to the purport and import of the Rules of 1953, protection, if any, available to the highest bidder in a fishery settlement tender, has to essentially remain confined to the questions of transparency and fairness in the tender process and no further. For the reasons stated here-in above, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.