WP(C) 4708/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Dhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Adhikari, learned Sta te Counsel. In challenge is the sale notice dated 22/5/2003 issued by the Di visional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar, for settlement of Jatinga-Dam cherra Stone Mohal (for short hereafter referred to as the Mahal) under the Assa m Sale of Forest Produce, Mohal Rules, 1977 (as amended) (for short hereafter re ferred to as the Rules) for the period 2003-2005 on the ground that the process had been initiated without taking the prior permission of the Central Government , as it (Mahal) is located within a reserved forest area. This Court while issui ng notice of motion on 20/6/2003 required the learned State Counsel to obtain in structions as to whether such a permission was necessary in the face of the obse rvation made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17/6/2003 passed in WA 25/2003. In his affidavit, the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar, has amongst ot hers stated on oath that the Mahal is fully outside the reserve forest area and hence no central Government clearance is required for a fresh settlement thereof . According to the answering respondent, the Mahal had been put to sale in the p ast several times under the Rules without such permission. Whereas Mr. Dhar has urged that having regard to the observation made in the order dated 22/5/2003 of this Court in WA 25/2003, such a permissio n is an indispensable pre-condition for a valid initiation of the process for se ttlement of the Mahal, Mr. Adhikari submits that in the face of the categorical assertion of the jurisdictional State Authority that the Mahal is outside the re served forest area and that no prior permission of the Central Government is nec essary, the plea to the contrary ought not to be entertained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the competing pleaded stand, this Court if of the view, having regard to the lapse of time in between that this petition should be closed by leaving the concerned State authority with the requirement of ascertaining the location of the Mahal in question and the necessity on the basis thereof of the permissio n of the Central Government for its future settlement under the Rules. As the pl eadings give rise to disputed questions of fact on this aspect of the controvers y, this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction is not inclined to delve into th e contentious factual debate. The petition, to reiterate, stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.