Rule-based direct settlement power upheld where special circumstances and governmental satisfaction conditioned its use; acquiescence barred writ relief.

Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules was construed as operating only where special circumstances existed and the Government formed the requisite opinion under the governing statutory scheme. On that reading, it did not confer unguided or uncanalised power, and was upheld as a rational regulatory measure consistent with Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g). The Court also held that the petitioners, having themselves sought direct settlement and not objected when the power was invoked, had acquiesced in the exercise of latent jurisdiction. That acquiescence disentitled them to discretionary writ relief, so the challenge to the fishery settlements failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules was invalid as conferring arbitrary power and infringing Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to relief in view of their acquiescence in the Government's exercise of power under Rule 12.

Issue (i): whether Rule 12 of the Assam Fishery Rules was invalid as conferring arbitrary power and infringing Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 12 was read in the light of Section 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the earlier Supreme Court construction that direct settlement could be made only when special circumstances existed and the Government formed the requisite opinion. On that construction, the rule did not authorise an unguided or uncanalised departure from the statutory scheme. The regulation of fishery settlement by rules was treated as a rational regulatory measure and not an unreasonable restraint on the right to carry on a profession.

Conclusion: Rule 12 was held valid and not inconsistent with Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled to relief in view of their acquiescence in the Government's exercise of power under Rule 12.

Analysis: The petitioners had approached the Government for direct settlement and did not object to the exercise of jurisdiction when it was invoked. The Court distinguished between patent and latent lack of jurisdiction and held that where jurisdiction depends on the existence of special circumstances and the formation of an opinion by the Government, the defect is latent. In such a situation, acquiescence to the exercise of power disentitles the party to a writ.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to a writ and the challenge to the settlement failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected, and the impugned fishery settlements were allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule permits direct administrative action only on the Government's satisfaction that special circumstances exist, the rule is valid if it is read as conditioned by that standard, and a petitioner who acquiesces in the exercise of such latent jurisdiction cannot obtain discretionary writ relief.

---