KRISHNA RAM MEDHI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Rule the validity of the order passed by the Slate Government ordering direct settlement of a fishery on 16 -3 -1966 in favour of the fifth Respondent in exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules is questioned.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly noticed. The fishery in question was advertised for sale by tender, notice having been issued on 31 -12 -1965. The tender was for three years from 1966 -67 to 1968 -69. In response to the tender notice, tenders were submitted by the Petitioner, the fifth Respondent, the sixth Respondent and some others. The highest tender was that of the fifth Respondent, which was for Rs. 33,125. The Petitioner had made an offer of Rs. 31,200. The sixth Respondent's tender was for Rs. 26,625. On 15 -2 -1966 the tenders were apparently opened and considered and on the sixth Respondent offering to and agreeing to pay the amount equivalent to what the highest tender offered, namely, Rs. 33,125, the Deputy Commissioner settled the fishery with him.' But thereafter, within the time allowed, the sixth Respondent failed to make the deposit of one -fourth of the amount offered by him. On "account of this default the fishery had to be resold in accordance with Clause 6 Of the sale notice by tender, which is as follws:

(3.) IN this connection there are a number of decisions of this Court which followed the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Reference may be invited to the two cases of Birendra Nath Barman v. Deputy Commissioner Goalpara, ILR (1963) Gau 288, and Barada Kanta Bishva v. Assam Board of Revenue, AIR 1967 G&N 22 But what Mr. Ghose contends is that although on a plain reading of Rule 12 the discretion given to the State Government appears to be unfettered in a situation where the requirements of condition 6 of the sale notice had to be complied with, that requirement being a mandatory one, the State Governments power must be regarded as subordinate to the compliance with that condition and therefore in a case like the present one where there has been default by successful tenderer in the first instance and consequently the fisher had to be resold in obedience to the mandatory provision contained in condition 6 of the sale notice the power of the State Govt. must be deemed to have been held over We are unable to accept this broad proposition If it was intended by the rule makers that the power of the State Government has to be hedged in with this condition or subordinate to certain circumstances, it would have been made plain In the rule itself, As it is, there are no such conditions laid down. The mere fact that a fresh sale notice had been issued because of the default committed by the earlier successful tenderer, in our opinion, should make no difference. In fact, the purport of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court supports this view also. We see no objection to the action taken in this case by the State Government in effecting a direct settlement. We are assured by Mr. Ghose that it was never him intention to aver or allege that the object of the State Government in making direct settlement was with any motive. Such being the position, the case is very clear and calls for no interference by us.