WP(C) 3864/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the p etitioner as well as Ms. V.L. Singh, the learned State Counsel appearing on beha lf of all the respondents. The petitioner, by the present petition has chal lenged the sale notice dated 25-08-2009 (published on 01-09-2009 in a local Engl ish daily, namely the Assam Tribune) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, So nitpur East Division, the respondent No.5, inviting bids for sale of Hatinga AP land quarry for the year 2009-2011 under the provisions of the Assam Sale of For est Croups and Mahal Rules, 1977, as amended. According to the petitioner, though initially vi de order of settlement dated 03-08-2007 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur East Division, the said quarry was settled with the petitioner for 2 ( two) years ending on 23-08-2009 for extraction of 1000 m3 of sand, 4000m3 of gra vel and 3000m3 boulder, the entire allotted quantity could not be extracted with in the aforesaid period of time as the land within that quarry was occupied by s ome patta holders, who were extracting sand, boulder and gravel therefrom. Acco rding to the petitioner, he immediately approached the Forest Officer for extens ion of the period of lease beyond 23-08-2009. The petitioner’s further case is t hat the authority thereafter, put the mahal to resale vide sale notices dated 21 -06-2008 and 24-07-2008 for extraction of the remaining quantities of the sand, gravel and boulder, pursuant to which, however, no bidder has offered their bids . It is the case of the petitioner that he thereafter, filed a further represen tation dated 12-10-2008 before the Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur for allow ing him to extract the remaining sand, gravel and boulder pursuant to the allotm ent made in his favour on 03-08-2007 but the authority instead of allowing him t o extract the said unextracted quantity has settled the said land quarry in favo ur of one Sri Anup Paul vide order dated 10-12-2008. The petitioner has further contended that thereafter, also he filed a representation dated 20-07-2009 befo re the Divisional Forests Officer for allowing him to extract the unextracted qu antity of sand, gravel and boulder but the authority has issued the fresh sale n otice for sale of the said quarry for the period from 2009-2011 under the provis ions of the 1977 Rules, as amended. The petitioner, therefore, by the present p etition has challenged the notice dated 25-08-2009 published on 01-09-2009 and a lso prayed for directing the respondents to allow him to extract the remaining q uantities of sand, gravel and boulder pursuant to the earlier allotment order da ted 03-08-2007. It appears from the averments made in the writ p etition, as narrated above, that though the petitioner was settled with the quar ry in question for extraction of the specified quantities of sand, gravel and bo ulder vide order dated 03-08-2007 and an agreement was entered into by and betwe en the parties for a period of 2 years ending on 23-08-2009, in view of failure to pay the kist money, the said mahal was put to resale. The said mahal was sub sequently settled in favour of Sri Anup Paul for extraction of unextracted quant ity of materials from the mahal in question during the remaining period. The pe titioner neither challenged the resale notice nor the subsequent order of settle ment in favour of Sri Anup Paul dated 10-12-2008. The period of settlement in f avour of said Anup Paul was up to 23-08-2008, i.e. the period up to which the pe titioner was allowed to operate, meaning thereby he was allowed to extract the u nextracted material from the mahal during that period for which the petitioner w as initially settled with the mahal, which was put to resale in view of failure of the petitioner to pay the kist money. Having settled the said mahal in favou r of said Sri Anup Paul for the remaining period, as aforesaid, which has not be en challenged by the petitioner, no illegality has been committed by the authori ty in putting the said quarry for sale for the subsequent period by the impugned sale notice dated 25-08-2009 published in the newspaper on 01-09-2009. The pet itioner cannot claim that he should be allowed to extract the unextracted quanti ty from the mahal pursuant to the order dated 03-08-2007, the said unextracted q uantity having been allowed to be extracted by the authority vide order dated 10 -12-2008 passed in favour of said Sri Anup Pau, hence, the prayer of the petitio ner in the present petition cannot be accepted. It is, however, open to the pet itioner to file the appropriate representation before the appropriate authority seeking refund of any kist money proportionate to the unextracted quantities of materials in the mahal in question and the authority in the event of filing such representation shall pass necessary order in accordance with law keeping in vie w the resale notice issued and also the subsequent settlement made in favour of Sri Anup Paul vide order dated 10-12-2008. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of wit h the aforesaid observation. No cost.