# THE STATE OF ASSAM v. KESHAB PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER - **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 865 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1952-02-20 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 176 and 176-A of 1952 - **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, VrvrAN BosE, Jagannadha Das - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-assam-v-keshab-prasad-singh-and-another-213 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote 865 Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (I of 1886), s. 16, Rules 190, 190A, 191-Settlement of fisheries---Direct settleme11t under r. 190A ofter a1wtion by Deputy Commissioner and on his recommendation--Whether settlement of Deputy Commissioner under Rules, or execntive act of State-Appeal to Hic1h Court-Maintaina.bility. The Government of Assam, desiring to settle a fishery direct under'" 190-A of the rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (I of 1886), directed the Deputy Commissioner concerned to put the fishery to auction and submit the bid list to Government with his recommendation for direct settle~ ment. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly auctioned the fishery and submitted the bid list with a recommendation in the first respondent's favour. Government sanctioned the settlement of the fishery wi_th the first respondent and the latter was informed of the acceptance of the bid and directed to make the deposits. Government received two more petitions on the same day for re~consideration of the orders passed and three weeks later Government reviewed its order and settled the fishery with another person. The first respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court under r. 190 which provided that all orders of a Deputy Commissioner passed under these rules were appealable to tee High Court : Held, the words " except with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government" in r. 190-A do not permit the Provincial Government when it so wishes to lift the sa)es completely out of the statutory protection afforded by the Regulation and proceed to dispose of them by executive action. Such a construction would maker. 190-A run counter to s. 16 of the Regulation which requires these sales to be made under and in accordance \Vith the Rules. The departure contemplated by r. 190-A was a departure within the Rules. As the Deputy Commissioner was the only JJ2 • 19.)3 April 1-1. • 1963 '1 1he State of A_Hsr1111 v. Keshab P'/'nsad S{ngh and 866 Sl'PREiVIE COUI-tT REPORTS [1953] authority competent to settle these fisheries, subject to sanction, the act of cancellation and the act of resettlem~nt were his a.cts, however inucb he ma.y Jiaye actetl nuder the direction and orders of the Government, and the High Court hahab Prasad Singh and Another BoseJ. - s7o SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1953 for 3 years with effect from 1st April, 1951. You are The State of therefore directed to deposit the 1 /4 purchase money amounting to Rs. 4,425 on 28th March, 19;'51, and the .4-ssa1n v. balance of .Rs. 13,27 5 in cash on 31st March, 1951, failing Keshab Pmsad which the settlement granted is liable to be cancelled." Singh and• ~4noth1'1' BoseJ. According to all notimm of contract current in civilised countries that would hiwe constituted a binding engagement from which one of the parties to it could not resile at will, and had the first respondent tried to hack out we have little doubt that the State Government of Assam would, and quite justifiably, have insisted on exacting its just clues. But the State Government did not feel itself hampered by any such old fashioned notions regarding the sanctity of engagements. On the very day on which it passed its orders in the first respondent's favour, 17th Ma,rch, 1951, it received two more.petitions. They emanated from the same sources as before and said nothing new ; but they asked for a reconsideration of the orde.rs just passed. Had Government recalled its orders then and there, possibly no harm would have been done beyond exposing its vacillations to a limited official eircle. Hut it allowed five days to pass and then the Revenue Secretary wired the Deputy Commissioner not to recall the orders of Government, but to "stay delivery of possession" ponding what the Hevenue Secretary was pleased to call "further orders of Government 011 the revision petitions". But by then it was too late. The acceptance of the bid had already been communicated to the first respondent nnd by nll ordinary notions the contnwt was complete. The State Govemment now says in effect, somewhat cynically, that it is not bound by the statutory rules and claims that that gives it the right to rec,ill its previous orders and regrant the fishery to some other person or body more to its liking, or rather in whom it has discovered fresh virtues hidden from its view in its earlier anxious and mature deliberations. Acting on the telegraphic instructions received by him, the Deputy Commissioner conveyed the orders to the first respondent on 22nd March, 1951, and said:- S.C.R. SUPRE:JIE COURT REPORTS Sil "The undermentioned document is forwarded to Sri jut Kes!mb Prosad Singh ......... for information and necessary action. He is further informed that he is not to deposit the I ;4th purchase money and additional securitv ......... till the decision of the revision petition mei{- tioned in the telegram". Three weeks elapsed and then on 13th April, 1951, the State Oovemment solernnly "reviewed" its former order and said : - "It is reported by the Deputy Commissioner that the Gamiri Kharai-Chaiduar. Fishermen Society, Ltd., is constituted by bona .fide fishermen. Accordingly, in view of the new circumstances brought forward by the above Society the review petition is allowed and the previous orders of Governrnent ......... dated the 17th March, 1951, is modified. The Chaiduar Brahmaputra and Kharaibeel fishery is accordingly settled with the Gamiri KliaraiChaiduar Fishermen Society Ltd ...... " The manager of this Fishermen's Society is one Maniram Das. His name was put forward by 205 members who olaimod to be bona .fide Assamese fishermen in the petitions of 27th October, 1950, and 21st December, 1950, also by Maniram himself on behalf of this Society on 2nd January, 1951. Their claims were endorsed by the Sub-Deputy Collector on 4th January, 1951, and by the Deputy Commissioner on 5th January, 1951. The same claims were again made by Maniram Das on behalf of the Society on 23rd January, 1951. The "new circumstances" said to have been discovered on review was the following statement made by the Deputy Commissioner on 3rd April, 1951 :- " Gamiri Kharai-Chaiduar Society is formed by bonri fhle fishermen". The previous statement of the Sub-Deputy Collector made on 4th .Tanuary, 1951, was:- "The applicants are all Kaibarta people in the district of Darrang whoHe sole business is to deal with 1953 The State oj A3sa1n v. Keshab JJrasad Singh and Another Bose J, - J9/j3 -The State of Assa1n v. 872 · S~PREME COURT REPORTS [1953] fish ............ The applicants are Assamese people. In view of this and in view of the fact that these people have been recommended by respectable persons, I Keshnb Prasad suggest that Kharai-Chaiduar fishery" (the one in question here) " may be settled with them to encourage them to compete with the other fishermen Singh and Another Bose J. coming from outside Assam." The Deputy Commissioner's endorsement on this (the same Deputy Commissioner) dated 5th January, 1951, runs:- " The petitioner (Maniram Das) is an actual fisherman as will appear from the report of the SubDeputy Collector ...... As observed by the Sub-Deputy Collector ..... .it is a fact that the indigenous fishermen cannot compete with the upcountry people in open auction." To characterise the later statement of the Deputy Commissioner dated 3rd April, 1951, as disclosure of a new circumstance betrays a cynical disregard for accuracy on a par only with the Assam Government's cynical disregard for its pledged word. The Deputy Commissioner was informed of the Government's revised decision on 13th April, 1951, and on 16th April, 1951, the fishery was settled with Maniram Das and, according to the first respondent, the settlement in his name was cancelled. The first respondent's reaction to this was to file an appeal to the High Court under rule 190 and at the same time to apply for a mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution. The relief sought was worded as follows:- - " The humble appellant, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be pleased to set aside the settlement of the fishery with the respondent and restore the settlement of the same with the humble appellant." The High Court, not unsurprisingly on these facts. granted the prayer. It acted under rule 190 as an appellate tribunitl and the only question for us to de- /' cide is whether it lrnd jurisdiction to do Ro, The I .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR.TS 873 The appellant is 1953 mandamns petition is not before us. the State of Assam. There is an ancient presumption under section 114, Th• State of Assani illustration (h), of the Evidence Act, dating from at v. least 1872, that official acts have been regularly per· KMhab p,.asad formed. Strange as it may seem this applies to GovernSingh anrl ments as well as to lesser bodies and officials, and Another. ancient though it is the rule is still in force. True, the presumption will have to be applied with caution in this case but however difficult the task it is our duty to try and find a );wful origin for as many of the acts of the appellan~ Government as we can. Now, as we have seen, prescribed fisheries in Assam were lifted out of the realm of matters which could be disposed of at the executive discretion of either Governments or officials and were placed under statutory regulation and control by sections 16 and 155 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1886; and we have already referred to the elaborate set of rules which were drawn up in pursuance of that Regulation. It follows that no fisherv can be "settled" except in accordance with those Ri'ilcs. . It was not disputed that, apart from rule 190-A/ which we are now called upon to construe, the Deputy Commissioner alone could effect a "settlement" and, as we have shown, he was bound to follow a prescribed procedure; also that his "settlement" was subject to the sanction of the Commissioner. Rule 190-A permits a departure but we do not con·/ sider it n0cessary in this case to determine the exact extent of the departure permitted because the Deputy Commissioner was directed to put the fishery to auction and he did so. The only departure from the rules was that instead of sending the result of the auction to the Commissioner for Settlement it was sent to the State Government direct. ln our opinion, that was a permissible depal'ture but it was for all that a departure within the Rules. In our judgment, the words "except with the pre· vious ·sanctiorr of thw·Provincial Govornment" are 113 BoseJ. 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1953 important. vVo do not consider that tqis permits the Provincial Government when it so wishes to lift the Eales ·Th.r.State of l h d db Assam complete y out oft e statutory protection affor e y v. the Regulation and proceed to dispose of them by Keshnb Pmsnd executive action. Such a construction would make s;ngh and rule 190-A run counter to section 16 of the Regulation Another. which requires these sales to be made in accordance with rules framed under section 155, and of course a rule-making authority cannot override the statute. Accordingly, the law requires the sale to be under and in accordance with the rules. It follows that the departure contemplated by rule 190-A is also a departure within the four corners of the rules read as a whole and is a part of the rules. It is true the departure need not conform to the "preceding instructions " contained in the earlier portion of the rules but the departure once sanctioned itself becomes part and parcel of the rules. This is important because one of the statutory safeguards against arbitrary executiYe action i~ the appeal to the Revenue Tribuna~ which in this case is the High Court. We would be slow to hold that this safegnard can he circumvented by the simple expedient of lifting a sale out of the rules whenever Government finds that convenient. It seems to us that if the intention was to authorise Government to lift the matter out of the rules altogether and to proceed in an executive capacity the word " sanction " would be out of place, for Govemment would hardly require its own previous san8tion to something which it is itself authorised to do. The sanction must therefore refer to something which some other person or body is authorised to do, and in the context we feel that it can only mean sanction to the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in a manner which is not quite in accordance with the instructions contained in the rules. The next question is, to what extent was a departure sanctioned ? This is to be found in the letter dated 1st February, 1951, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner ;- · •• s.c.k. l:\CPREME COCR'J' REPOR1'S 875 "Government desire to settle the above mentioned fishery direct· under rnle 190-A. I am therefore directed to request you to put the fishery to auction and then to submit the bid list to Government with your recommendation for direct settlement ". The State of Assam wishes to construe this to mean that the Government of Assam intended to flout the statute and disregard the Rules and proceed by exeeutive action. The words " direct settlement " do lend themselves to that construction but that would be an act which, in our opinion, would not be warranted by the law and, as we are bound to presume until the contrary is shown that the official acts of the Assam Government were regularly performed, we must, if we can, lean against a constrnction which would put that Government more in the wrong than we can help especially as it itself purported to act under rule 190-A. Now the only act which would be in consonance with rule 190-A and which would at the same time bo in conformity with the letter of the first Febmary would be for the Deputy Commissioner to sell by auction and then send the matter to Government direct for sanction instead of to the Commissioner. That, in our opinion, would be a permissible departure and would make the action of Government legal and would bring the matter under rule 190-A. In the circumstances, we. are bound to constme this letter in that sense. Now what did the Deputy Commissioner do ? 80 far as the actual auction was concerned, he followed the Rules. He held a regular auction anrl recorded the bids in the usual way. Up to that point ho not only complied with the letter of the 1st February but also with the regular mies. His only departure was to send his choice of a lessee to Government direct instead of to the Commissioner. This, acvording to us, was a permissible departure. Li pon receipt of the Deputy Commissioner's recommendation Government sanctioned the settlelllent with the first respondent and the Deputy Commissioner co1nmunicitted the sanction. 1953 The State of Assa1n v. Keshab PrMad Singh and Another. Bose J. L.. 1963 The State of Assani v, 87G SUPHEME COGRi' RRPOHTS [1953] It was argued on behalf of the State of Assam that this was not a settlement by the Deputy' Commissioner but by the State Govemment and that the Deputy Commissioner was only acting as its mouthpiece when [(eahal! Prasad he conveved the orders of Govr;rnment to the :5.rst Singh and Another. BPae J. respondei{t. In our opinion, that is a mere playing with words. The su bstauce of the thing is there. It would be illegal for Government to setHc the fishery direct by executive action because of the statute. It would be proper for it to sanction tlw settlement under rule 190-A in the way it did. liovernment said it was acting under rule 190-A. H said it had "sanctioned " the settlement. \Vhose act was it sanctioning? Certainly not its own, for one cannot sanction one's own act. Sanction can only be accorded to the act of another and the only other person concerned in this matter was the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, in spite of the efforts of Government to appear as a bold brave despot which knows no laws but its own, we are constrained to hold that it not only clothed itself with an aura of legality but that it actually acted within the confines of the laws by which it is bound. It follows that the settlement was the act of the Deputy Commissioner and fell within the four corners of the rules. That vested the first respondent with a good and legal title to the lease. Next followed a similar series of acts cancelling the settlement \Vith the first respondent and resettling the fishery with the rival body. As the Deputy Commissioner was the only authority competent to settle these fisheries, subject of course to sanction, we are bound to hold that the act of cancellation and the act of resettlement were his acts however much he may have acted under the direction and orders of a third party. That at once vested the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against his actions under rule 190. \Vhen we say the Deputy Commissioner acted under the direction and orders of the State Government, we refer to the actual act of "settling" and not to his choice of a lessee. If this auction had proceeded in the normal S,C.R. ,. . . SliPREME uoun:r REPORTS 877 1958 The .State of Assa1n v. way, the Deputy Commissioner would have directed the auction and would have made a selection and would then have sent his selection on to a higher authority, the Uommissioner, for sanction. He would then have "settled" the fishery. In the present case, he carried out every one of those steps except that the higher authority here was the State Government which had substituted itself under rufo 190-A in place of the Commissioner. It was the Deputy Commissioner who rn ade the initial choice. It was hi.s choice which was " sanctioned " and it was he who in realitv and in fact " settled" the fisherv with the first i:ospondent. The mere fact that the St~te Government in adrlition to " sanctioning" his act also told him to " settle" the fishery could not alter or divest him of his legal authority. This is not a case in which the Deputy Uommissioner having been vested with a discretion failed to exercise it and acted as the mouthpiece of another. His discretion was to select a bidder and he did that without any outside pressure. Thereafter his authority was to " settle " the fishery with the selected bidder once his act was sanctioned and the mere fact 1hat he was directed by another to do that which he would have been bound to do under the law in any event cannot diYest the settlement of its legal and binding character. Keshab PrasC11J. On the nwrits the High Court 1rns abundantly right. W c accordingly uphold its order and dismiss the appeal with costs pttyable to the first respondent. Civil Appeal No. 176-A of 1952. J3osE ,J. --For the reasons giveti in our judgment in Civil Appeal l\o. 176 of 1952 pronounced to-day, we dismiss the appeal without costs. Appeals di:smissed. Agent for the appella.nt in Appeal No. 176: Naimit Lal. Agent for respondent No. 1 in Appeal Xo. 176 and respondent in Appeal No. 176-A: A. D. 1vlathur. Aacnt for respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 176 and app~llant in Appeal No. 176-A: K. R. Krishnaswamy. Singh and Another. Bosl' .f.