ABDUS SALAM CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the notice/ order No. B/ 18, 717-18/ 7(a) dt. 19-7-80 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,075.00 being the difference of an amount offered by the petitioner for settlement of the Nunoi C.S. (2nd year lease) Bamboo Mahal and the amount received by the Department on the sale of the said mahal after cancellation of the alleged settlement with the petitioner.

(2.) In response to a sale notice dt. Silchar, the 17th Dec., 1976 issued by the Respondent No.4, the Divisional Forest Officer, Silchar inviting tender for settlement of different Bamboo Mahals including Nunoi C.S. (2nd year lease) Bamboo Mahal for the period from 1-4-77 to 31-03-78, the petitioner submitted tender for settlement of the Nunoi Mahal offering an amount of Rs. 36,575.00.

(3.) The petitioner states after submission of the tender, on careful inspection of the inner part of the said Mahal, having found that clumps of mature bamboo were taken away by the newly appointed Forest Contractor and that it was not possible to extract left over mature bamboos from the deep forest, the petitioner before consideration and acceptance of his order made in the tender by an application dt. 21-03-77 addressed to the Respondent No.3 to withdraw his offer requesting that his tender might be cancelled. In spite of the fact that the petitioner withdrew his offer by the application dt. 21-03-77 well before acceptance thereof, the respondent No.4 vide Memo No. B/8959/60/7(a) dt. 28-4-77 intimated the petitioner that the provisional settlement of the Mahal in question made vide letter No. FGM.24/C/6/77-78/ 1393 dt. 7-4-77 by the Conservator of Forests stood confirmed and asked the petitioner to sign an agreement on or before 6-5-77 and to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 9,146.00 and also the security money amounting to Rs. 1,929.00. That was followed by another letter dt. 01-07-77 directing the petitioner to pay the first kist money within 7 days. The petitioner neither signed the agreement nor made any deposit. The respondent No.4 by a letter dt. 26-7-77 intimated the petitioner that the Conservator of Forests had rejected the prayer of withdrawal of tender made vide the application dt. 21-3-77. The respondent No.4 again by letter dt. 9-8-77 asked the petitioner to deposit the first kist money and the security money within 7 days failing which it was threatened that necessary action would be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government of Assam for setting aside the order of settlement. By an order dt. 12-7-88, the Government rejected the petitioners' appeal and intimated that if the petitioner wanted to operate the Mahal, he should be given a chance by re-fixing the period of settlement from 1-7-78 to 30-6-79 provided he paid the security money and kist money before 30-7-78 failing which Mahal should be put to resale at the risk of the petitioner. The petitioner filed application for review of the order of the Government dt. 12-7-78. However, the Government by order dt. 9-8-78 asked the petitioner to deposit the kist money and the security money within 7 days and further intimated that the Mahal would be put to resale at the risk of the petitioner, in case of his failure to make the deposit.