JENG HANSER Vs. KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS DIST COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 10.9.96 and 23.9.96 issued by the Deputy Secretary (T) i/c Forest, Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hamren Division for settling the Bark Mahal of Hamren Forest Division with. Sri Deori Rongpi and Sri Robi Singh Teron, respondents 6 and 7 respectively.

(2.) The facts, briefly, are that in the year 1988 the petitioner was settled with the Lahm Mahal of Hamren Forest Division for a period of two years by an order dated 9.3.88 issued by the Principal-Secretary of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council. On the basis of the said settlement the petitioner collected Bark from the said Mahal during the year 1988-89. But subsequently by an order dated 9.5.89 the aforesaid settlement in favour of the petitioner was cancelled in public interest. Thereafter, during the years 1989 to 1995, Bark Mahals under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council were not put for sale presumably on account of ecological reasons and in the public interest. Suddenly by order dated 10.9.96 and 23.9.96 issued by the Deputy Secretary, in-charge Forest Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council, the Bark Mahal (Baknallah Bark, Caul Bark, Laham Bark, Bud seed pipuli Bark of the entire Hamren Division) was settled with respondent No. 6 and Bark Mahal (A.P. Bark & L.S. Bark) was settled with respondent No. 7 respectively for a period of one year. It is these two orders issued by the Deputy Secretary, in-charge Forest, Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council in favour of respondents- 6 and 7 which have been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. AFG Osmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that before settlement of the aforesaid Mahals in favour of respondents-6 and 7 no auction was held nor any advertisement was issued inviting tenders. Hence the petitioner did not get any opportunity to participate in the settlement. He further contended that the aforesaid settlement in favour of respondents -6 and 7 have been made by negotiation. According to Mr. Osmani though negotiation is one of the methods by which sale of forest Mahal can take place under Rule 3 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes & Mahals Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the. Rules) the Government or authority on its behalf cannot negotiate with any one it likes and in any case all interested parties should be given an opportunity for such negotiation. In the present case, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and hence the seettlement was contrary to the principle of fair play and public interest. Mr. Osmani cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana & others, (1985) 3 SCC 267, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Government is not free like an ordinary individual, in selecting recipient for its largessee. It need not deal with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly and without exercisimg absolute and unfettered discretion and without unfair procedure. Alternatively, Mr. Osmani submitted that from a reading of the two impugned orders dated 10.9.96 and 23.9.96 it will be clear that one and the same Bark Mahal has been settled jointly in favour of the two parties and according to Mr. Osmani no such joint settlement is permissible as would be evident from Rule 12 of the Rules whereunder no coupe or mahal can be sold jointly to more than one person except in the case of a co-operative society or a firm or a joint stock company duly registered in the office of the appropriate Registering Authority in Assam.