AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Mehrotra, C.J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are that No. 13 Rupua Jaljali Kholabandha Group of fisheries is a fishery declared u/s 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Under a notification of the State Government this fishery could be settled by a tender system. Tenders were invited for settlement of this fishery. The settlement was made by the Deputy Commissioner. Then an appeal was filed against that order to the Assam Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue set aside the settlement and directed resettlement of the fishery. This order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 6-6-66. On 10-6-66 an application was filed by the opposite party No. 4 for direct settlement of the fishery with him.
The Petitioner also filed an application on 15-6-66 for direct settlement of the fishery with him. The State Government decided to sol lie the fishery with the opposite party No. 4 and the order was passed on 15-7-66. In the meantime, on remand the proceedings were going on before the Deputy Commissioner and he had fixed, after calling fresh tenders, 20-7-66 for settlement of the fishery. It is thus clear that on 15-7-66 when the settlement was made with the opposite party No. 4 there has been no settlement with anybody else. The Stale Government in the exercise of its powers under Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules settled directly the fishery with opposite party No. 4 this settlement has been challenged by this petition.
2-3. Dr. Medhi appearing for the Petitioner has covered a very wide range of arguments but, in our opinion, this case is concluded by our earlier decision in the case of Birendra Nath Barman v. Deputy Commr., Goalpara, reported in ILR (1963) Gau 288. Dr. Medhi''s main contention is that Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. He has also tried to argue that Rule 12 gives power to the State Government to make its choice at the earlier stage and decide whether it will settle through tender system or directly settle the fishery. Having once made up its mind that the fishery will be settled by tender system it is not open even to the State Government to by-pass the procedure laid down under Rules 42 and 46 of the Fishery Rules and the order of the Board of Revenue and make the direct settlement.
In the case, which we have referred to earlier, this Bench has definitely held that there is nothing in Rule 12 which confines the power of the State Government to the initial stage. Rule 12 lays down that the fishery will be settled ordinarily by auction sale except in the case of settlement by the Government. Thus, the normal rule of settlement by auction sale has been made subject to the State Government''s right to make settlement of the Fishery directly and thus Rule 12 has given wide powers to the State Government to make direct Settlement. The proviso to Rule 12 lays down that if the Government thinks proper in the circumstances of the case it can replace the method of auction sale by tender system. Thus it cannot be said on the interpretation of Rule 12 that the power of the State Government to make direct settlement can only be exercised at the initial stage. This point has been fully dealt with by this Bench in the case referred to above and it is not necessary for us to again reiterate our reasons given in that case.
That decision was again followed by another Bench of this Court Rule No. 39 of 1963 (Assam) Barada Kanta Bishaya v. State of Assam decided on 9-8-63. Dr. Medhi has, however, raised a point that Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules itself is ultra vires in so far as it makes exception in favour of the Government to make direct settlement. His argument is that Rule 12 lays down no guidance for the State Government in which circumstances it can make a direct settlement and with whom such a direct settlement can be made by the government. In the case of Ganga Ram Das Vs. Tezpur Kaibarta Co-operative Fishery Society Ltd., The question of validity of Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules Came up for decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. A Bench of this Court had held that Rule 12 is ultra vires inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Before the Supreme Court the same point was reiterated and it was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 12 is a valid piece of legislation.
Dr. Medhi''s contention is that as the only decision made by the Supreme Court in that case was that Rule 12 is not inconsistent with Section 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue regulation to that extent this Court cannot go the question of validity or otherwise of those rules but there is no bar to this Court in going into the question of validity of Rule 12 the ground that it is in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not think that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court holding Rule 12 to be a valid place of legislation, this Court can examine the validity of Rule 12 on the basis of Article 14 the Constitution.
In fact, in our earlier decision in 1963 we had also taken a similar view and did not enter into the question of validity of Rule 12 oar otherwise on the ground that it infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. Dr. Medhi has contended that there is no bar to this Court in going into that question and he has further contended that in our earlier decision we have kept that point open. We do not think that in our earlier judgment we have kept open that point. Under Article 14 of the Constitution any declaration of law made by the Supreme Court is binding on this Court and when the Supreme Court has held that Rule 12 is a valid piece of legislation, so far as this Court is concerned that decision is binding and we cannot hold the law as invalid. We do not therefore wish to go into that question.
Dr. Medhi has relied upon some cases to show that if an unguided power is given to the Government, such a power will be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. As we have held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, we are not going into the question of validity or otherwise of Ride 12 on the ground that it is in contravention of Article 14. It is not necessary to examine those cases in detail.
It is then urged that even on the interpretation of. Rule 12, unless it is shown to the Court that the Government considered the whole matter and passed on order withdrawing the order by which the Deputy Commissioner was asked to make the settlement by tender system, it was not open to the State Government to make a direct settlement of the fishery. As we have said, there was no settlement on 15-7-66 and thus the Government was free to exercise its discretion and make a direct settlement. Such a power from its very nature had to be a very wide. It is the Government alone, as it was pointed out in the 1957 Supreme Court case which can be the sole judge of the situation of the case and to decide whether direct settlement will he beneficial in the interest of the revenue of the State. When the Government made a direct settlement, there was no settlement before and therefore it cannot be said that the Government''s power was without any authority of law or was invalid.
In the result, therefore, we dismiss the petition with costs which we assess at Rs. 100, one set. As the stay order was operative till the disposal of this petition, the stay order stands vacated.