WA 336/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Heard Mr. MG Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms. B Goyal, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, issued, on 05-01-2009, by the resp ondent No. 5, namely, Divisional Forest Officer, Dhubri Division, Dhubri, for sa le of Sander Wood (Round Timber), the appellant offered his bid of Rs. 21,75,000 /-. On scrutiny, his offer was found to be the highest. Even though he had been found to be the highest bidder, respondent authorities had not issued sale order in his favour, the appellant made a representation, on 06-06-2009, addressed to respondent No. 2, namely, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam. With the grievance that though he was the highest bidder, the sale order, pursua nt to the NIT, dated 05-01-2009, had not been made in his favour, the appellant filed a writ petition, under Article 226, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 2872 of 2 009. By filing their affidavit, the respondents brought it to the notice of the Court that the sale of Sander Wood (Round Timber) had been banned by the Government o f India and that this ban had been communicated, vide letter, dated 26-10-2009, to the respondents by the Deputy Inspector General of Forest, Government of Indi a, and that following the said order, the sale notice, dated 05-01-2009, had bee n withdrawn by the respondents by letter, dated 03-11-2009. On the ground that the withdrawal of the sale notice by the order, dated 03-11-2 009, had not been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing any petition seeki ng amendment of the writ petition, the writ petition has been dismissed by a lea rned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 15-03-2010. Aggrieved by the di smissal of his writ petition, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Singh, learned counsel, submit s that in the petition, which the appellant had filed, the appellant had, as a m atter of fact, challenged the withdrawal of the sale notice by the subsequent or der, dated 03-11-2009, and that the finding, recorded, in this regard, by the le arned Single Judge, that the appellant had not challenged the withdrawal order, dated 03-11-2009, is incorrect. Even if one were to assume that the appellant had challenged the order o f withdrawal, dated 03-11-2009, the fact of the matter remains that the sale not ice was merely a notice inviting offers. Though the appellant’s offer was the hi ghest, the mere fact that the offer was highest did not vest in the appellant in defeasible right to demand sale of Sander Wood (Round Timber) to the appellant, when the respondents decided not to sell Sander Wood (Round Timber), because of the fact that the Central Government had banned the sale of Sander Wood (Round T inber). Had, in the present case, the respondents, instead of selling the Sander Wood (Round Timber) to the appellant, attempted to sell the Sander Wood (Round Timber) to any other person or had the respondents gone for another sale notice, the matter would have been different. When the Government of India has banned t he sale of Sander Wood (Round Timber) and the State has acted on the letter of t he Government of India issued, in this regard, on 26-10-2009, the action of the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. Situated thus, we do not find that when, as a matter of public policy, t he State Government had decided not to sell the Sander Wood (Round Timber), as r eflected from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the dismissal of t he writ petition calls for any interference by this Court. In view of the above, the appeal is not admitted and the same shall acco rdingly stand dismissed.