MANOJ PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.B. Choudhury, the learned advocate for the petitioner and also heard Mr B. Goswami, Govt. Advocate for the State respondents and also heard Mr N. Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 7.

(2.) The Bipin Stone Quarry Mahal for 1997 was settled with the writ petitioner subject to appeal provision for a period of six months vide order dated 29.7.97, that period of six months was to run from the final date of settlement. Sri Nuruzaman, respondent No. 8 herein filed an appeal against the settlement of the quarry in question with the writ petitioner, so, the settlement of the Mahal was kept in abeyance as communicated vide letter dated 16.8.97. The appellant, Md Nuruzaman v/ithdrew the appeal vide his letter dated 8.10.98. Thereafter, one Md Amran Khan, respondent No. 7 herein, submitted a prayer petition dated 28.7.98 to the Government for direct settlement of the Mahal as provided in Rule 3 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 which is as quoted below:- "Rule 3 Mode of Sale - (a) The Forest produce shall be sold by any of the following methods:- (1) By inviting tender, (2) By public auction. (3) By negotiation, direct by Government or on behalf of Government of Assam in Forest Department or any other manner as decided by Government on its own discretion." Rule 28 is also quoted below:-

(3.) Power given to the Government under Rule 3 and 28 to sell any forest produce by direct negotiation are not absolute. So, there is no doubt that the power is available to the Government under Rules 3 & 28 to sell any forest produce by'direct negotiation but that power is not absolute and/or arbitrary power which can be exercised by the authority in accordance with its whims and pleasure.