HOMESHWAR BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

(2.) For disposal of this writ petition, a brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary. The respondent No. 3 issued a sale notice on 28.9.2007 for settlement of some Sand Mahals including Digaru Sand Mahal No. 1(C) of 2007-2009 inviting tenders from the general public. A schedule has been appended to the aforesaid sale notice giving the details of duration of working period, stipulated quantity, earnest money, etc. The stipulated quantity was fixed at 20,000.00 cubic metres of sand and the earnest money at Rs. 3,14,000 with provision for due concession to eligible communities as per existing public policy. The petitioner submitted his tender quoting Rs. 60,00,000 and depositing an amount of Rs. 1,57,000 as earnest money. The tender of the petitioner was found to be most responsive amongst the tenderers and accordingly, the aforesaid Digaru Sand Mahal was provisionally settled with him vide Office Order No. 284 dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure C to the writ petition). On the next day, the petitioner vide his letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure D to the writ petition) addressed to the respondent No. 3, viz., D.F.O. Kamrup East Division, Guwahati, informed his inability to run the said Mahal "due to some unavoidable personal problems" and he was "not interested at all to sign agreement, etc., for the Mahal". Without replying to the said communication, the respondent No. 3 issued notice for Risk Safe on 5.1.2008 in respect of the aforesaid sand Mahal (Annexure E to the writ petition). Having come to know about the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 4.2.2008 before the respondent No. 2, requesting him to relieve him from liabilities and burden that may fall upon him due to the aforementioned risk sale. The respondent authorities did not respond to the said request. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to Rule 17 of the Assam Forest Produce Coupe and Mahals Rules, 1977 ('the Rules of 1977'), submits that after the Risk Sale, if the proceeds on re-sale are less than the value at which it was originally sold, the difference shall be realized from the original settlement holder and his earnest money shall also be forfeited and the whole security deposit and part thereof as may be necessary shall also be adjusted against the dues. The petitioner, hereinbefore, has an apprehension that he may be saddled with the aforesaid liabilities by way of misinterpretation of provision under Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules of 1977. According to the learned Counsel, such liabilities can be fixed with the original tenderer only when the Mahal was finally settled or accepted. The petitioner, in the instant case, promptly intimated the authorities concerned on the very next day of the provisional settlement of the Mahal in question and there was no occasion for signing any agreement by the petitioner with the settling authority and therefore, his provisional settlement could not be treated as final. Except the deposit of earnest money of Rs. 1,57,000, the petitioner deposited no other money by way of security deposit, etc.