MD. ABDUL SOBHAN Vs. KINARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of our judgment and order dated 9-7-82 in Civil Rule 434 of 1982, for short "the Writ Petition."

(2.) THE facts leading up to the present review application are that Shri Kinaram Das filed "The Writ Petition" questioning the validity of the appellate order passed by the Conservator of Forests. Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur. "The Conservator" for short. Simultola Cotton Mahal No. 4 had been advertised for sale under the Assam Sale of Forest Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977, "the Rules" for short. The present petitioner Md. Abdul Sobhan (respondent No. 4 in "the writ petition") offered Rs. 13,101 whereas Kinaram Das offered Rs. 24,151. Kinaram Das is a member of the listed class. The period of settlement is from 1-3-82 to 31-8-82. The Divisional Forest Officer accepted the offer of Kinaram Das, but the Conservator found certain technical error in the tender and rejected it. He accepted the offer of Md. Abdul Sobhan. The Government thereby was to suffer a loss of about Rs. 11,000. This Court found that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction vested in it by law to reject the tender of Kinaram Das. On perusal of the tender forms we noted that the errors committed by Kinaram were technical and trivial arithmetical errors and they were rectifiable and could have been rectified before the appellate authority. In any event we hold that the rejection of Kinaram's tender was invalid violative of the known principles of law, unjust, unfair and not in consonance with the provisions of any law. Accordingly, we quashed the order of settlement made by the appellate authority in favour of Md. Abdul Sobhan. It is true that on 9-7-82, when we disposed of "the Writ Petition", none appeared on behalf of the present petitioner. However, we were fully aware of his case and considered the validity of the appellate order. In support of the appellate authority. Senior Government Advocate appeared and made submissions. Upon hearing the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, we found that the impugned order was insupportable. The entire attack was against the impugned order passed by the appellate authority and it was held by this court that it was invalid. Even if the present petitioner Md. Abdul Sobhan or his counsel would have been present, the order could not have been otherwise. It is true that Abdul Sobhan had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and his counsel had also appeared attendance but on perusal of the said affidavit and upon hearing the learned counsel for Abdul Sobhan we do not find any new material which was not argued by the learned Senior Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellate authority and the State Government. We have scrutinised the entire judgment, the affidavit of Abdul Sobhan and hold that no injustice was caused to Abdul Sobhan. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length but we do not find any ground whatsoever to hold that the order was erroneous, unjust or improper.

(3.) ON the top of all, the question of review is not called for as after only 7 days the term of the settlement is going to terminate. It has been rightly urged by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the season for plucking "Simul cotton" is long over, and, in fact, Kinaram could not obtain any benefit of the order. Learned Senior Government Advocate produces before us a note of the D.F.O. to show that it was a seasonal Mahal and the harvesting period of Simultola Cotton is long over and the petitioner in "the Writ Petition" could not obtain any benefit of the decision in his favour in "the Writ Petition" rendered by us.