Appeal No 595 of 1967
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 28 1966 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No 242 of 1964
Naunit Lal for the appellants
D N Mukherjee for the respondent
299 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah CJ
The Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to quarry stone from certain areas including Harengi Stone Quarry Mahal for the period July 1 1963 to June 30 1964
Mool Chand Sarougi hereinafter called the respondent  submitted a tender accompanied by the requisite deposit of Rs 100 as earnest money and offered the rate of Rs 525 per rupee of royalty
The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the minimum quantity of 125000 c ft of stone allotted to the respondent out of the quarry he was to pay Rs 31250 
Intimation of acceptance of the tender was given to the respondent on July 13 1963
One Baputi Ram a member of a scheduled tribe appealed  against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer accepting the tender to the Government of Assam and obtained a stay order
After about three months he declined to prosecute the appeal and  his appeal was dismissed
The respondent then declined to accept the settlement of the quarry
The Divisional Forest Officer invited fresh tenders
The offers made were not however accepted and tenders were invited again
On January 10 1964 a settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 50000 c ft for the period from January 25 1964 to June 30 1964 for Rs 10000 The Divisional Forest Officer thereafter sought to recover the amount of Rs 31250 for which the tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of land revenue in the manner provided by section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891
The respondent then moved a petition in the High Court of Assam for an order quashing the proceeding for recovery of the amount demanded
The High Court held that the amount claimed was not recoverable under the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 and passed an order quashing the proceeding for recovery and issued a mandamus to the Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division not to proceed with the recovery
The State of Assam has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court
Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 pro vides  All money other than fines payable to Crown under this Regulation or under any rule made thereunder or on account of the price of any forest produce or of expenses incurred in the execution of this Regulation 300 in respect of any forest produce may if not paid when due be recovered under the law for the time being in force as if it were an arrear of land revenue
 The amount claimed to be due from the respondent is not on account of the price of any forest produce or of expenses incurred in the execution for recovery of any forest produce
The amount is also not due in the execution of the Regulation
So far there is common ground
It was claimed however that the amount was due under rule 10 promulgated in exercise of power under the Regulation and on that account it was recoverable as an arrear of land revnue
Rule 10 provides No lease for any fixed period giving the right of removing India rubber cane kutcha or cutch lac agar ivory or any other forests produce shall be given otherwise than in accordance with the general or special orders of the Conservator who is empowered to authorise sales in respect of such leases by auction tender or any other method at such rates as he may decide in his discretion
 The Rule in our judgment does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the obligations of the tender by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891
It is again difficult to hold that stone is forest produce within the meaning of the Act
In any event the Rule does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money
It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the officers of the Forest Department to grant leases in respect of certain forest produce
Ile lease may not be granted except in accordance with the general or special orders of the Conservator who alone As empowered to authorise a sale in respect of such a lease
It is a rule relating to the exercise of power to grant leases
The High Court was in our judgment right in observing that the amount of damages for breach of the terms of the sale notice is not an amount due under the Regulation or rule 10 made thereunder
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to quarry stone for the period July 1 1963 to June 30 1964
The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the minimum quantity of 125000 cft of stone allotted to the res pondent he was to pay Rs 31250 On appeal being filed against the order accepting the tender the Government of Assam granted stay of the order
When three months later the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution the respondent declined to accept settlement of the quarry
Thereafter tenders had to be invited again and it was only on January 10 1964 that a settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 5000 cft
for the period from January 25 1964 to June 30 1964 for Rs 10000
The Divisional Forest Officer then sought to recover the amount of Rs 31250 for which the tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of land revenue in the manner provided by section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891
The respondent moved a petition in the High Court for an order quashing the proceeding for recovery of the amount demanded
The High Court allowed the petition
holding that the amount claimed was not recoverable under the aforesaid Regulation
The State of Assam appealed to this Court with certificate
It was conceded that the amount was not recoverable under section 75 of the Regulation but reliance was placed on Rule 10 of the rules made under the Regulation HELD The appeal must fail
Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the obligations of the tender by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891
It is again difficult to hold that stone  is forest produce within the meaning of the Act
In any event the Rule does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money
It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the officers of the Forest Department to grant leases in respect of certain forest produce
The lease may not be granted except in accordance with the general or special order of the conservator who alone is empowered to authorise sale in respect of such a lease
300 E F