WP(C) 4183/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. R.P.Kakoti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. K. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate. The petitioner was the settlement holder of Longai Valley Sand Mahal No. IV for the period 2006-2008 and he was granted settlement by order dated 17.2.07 issued by the DFO, Karimganj at Rs.22 lacs to enable him to collect 10,000 cm. of sand . The kists were payable in eight equal installments @ R. 2,75,000 per kist. It is on record that the petitioner could deposit two kists for total amount of Rs.5,50,000/- but the sand of the appropriate quantity, for the said kist money deposited by the petitioner, could not be collected by him, because the bridge o n the approach road to the Sand Mahal was closed by the PWD. Although it is contended that there was an alternate road on the left side of ri ver Longai, i.e. the National Highway 44, it is submitted by Mr. Kakoti that the use of such alternate road was not possible because it does not touch the Sand Mahal in question. The petitioner by filing this petition had challenged the decision of the Forest authorities to put the Sand Mahal at risk sale by sale notice dated 7.8.07. The risk sale notice was challenged on the ground that such a risk sale notice cann ot be issued without at first, cancelling the subsisting settlement in favour of the petitioner. Non granting of 15 days minimum time, as per the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 17 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, was the additional ground of challenge. This Court on a prima facie satisfaction of the above contentions passed interim order on 17.8.07 suspending the risk sale notice. By virtue of the stay order o f this Court the risk sale notice can be executed and the Sand Mahal could not a lso be operated by the petitioner. In the process the term of settlement of the petitioner got over in July, 2008 and because of the pendency of the case and th e interim order passed, the Mahal is not earning any revenue and the public loss is caused. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that th e Sand Mahal may now be put to sale by appropriate process prescribed under the Rules. But since the petitioner could extract only 635 cm of sand of the entitle d 2500 cm of sand after depositing the two kists amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- it would be in the fitness of things to permit the petitioner, to extract the rema ining 1865 cm of sand. The petitioner undertakes to extract the balance quantity within a month from issue of appropriate lifting orders by the Forest Authority , to enable him to extract the balance quantity of 1865 cm of sand. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be permitted to deposit any more kist installment, as the term of settlement is already over. The petitioner is being permitted to extract the balance quantity only because o f the fact that extraction could not be made by him despite of kist money only b ecause of the closure of the approach bridge by the PWD. The petitioner would furnish a copy of this Court’s order to the competent fores t authority to enable him to seek permission for extraction of balance quantity of 1865 cm of sand and the authorities would grant not more than 30 days for suc h extraction. In the meantime, the fresh sale process can be initiated. The petition is disposed of accordingly.