MC 152/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant in Misc. Case N o.152 of 2009, Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the applicant in Misc. Case No.367 of 2009 and Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.46 of 2008. The applicants by the present applications have prayed for vacation/modi fication of the interim direction contained in the order dated 14.11.2008 passed in W.P.(C). No.4652 of 2008. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the NIT dated 20 .09.2008 on the ground that the same has not been issued as required under Rule 4 as no advertisement in the newspaper has been issued and also on the ground th at minimum of 30 days as required to be given for submission of tender has not b een given. The further contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that though he went to the office of the DFO for submission of the tender papers on 10.10.2008 before 3 p.m., he was prevented by one Moinul Hoque Mazumdar, his son Shaidur Alam Mazumdar (who has subsequently been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition on his prayer) alongwith some other musclemen from submitting the tender papers and though he informed the DFO and met him before 3 p.m. on that date, the DFO has refused to accept the tender paper on the ground that the time for submission of such tender paper is over. This court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 14.11.2008 ha s passed an interim order directing the respondent not to settle Daloo River San d and Mahal in pursuance to the NIT dated 20.09.2008 issued by the DFO, Cachar, Silchar until further order, on the ground that the tender notice is prima facie violative of Rule 4 of 1977 Rules. In the writ petition though the petitioner has made certain allegations against the aforesaid persons namely, Moinul Hoque Mazumdar and Shaidur Alam Maz umdar, they have not been impleaded as party respondents. Shaidur Alam Mazumdar, however, has impleaded himself subsequently by filing a miscellaneous applicati on being M.C. No.288/2009, as respondent No.6, in whose favour the provisional o rder of settlement has been made on 30.10.2008. Moreover, it appears from the pl eadings of the parties that the said Mahal was put to sale initially through pub lication in newspaper on 14.08.2008 by giving 30 days clear time for submission of tender which however has been abandoned and subsequently the NIT dated 20.09. 2008 has been issued giving time till 10.10.2008 for submission of tender. Proviso to Rule 4 provides that for resale of any Mahal or timber lot, p ublication of short sale notice giving fifteen days time for submission of tende r shall be made which may or may not be published in the newspapers. This court as noticed above by the order dated 14.11.2008 has passed the interim order only on the ground of prima facie violation of Rule 4 of the said Rules. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, I am however, prima facie of the opinion that since the Mohal was put to resale by issuing the NIT dated 20.0 9.2008 after abandoning the earlier process initiated by issuing the advertiseme nt in the newspaper on 14.08.2008, Rule 4 of 1977 Rules has not been violated. T his view is for the purpose of consideration of the present applications only an d not the final view expressed by me in this regard. In view of the above and since the provisional settlement has been made much prior to filing of the writ petition and, in fact, the final settlement ord er has been made on 14.11.2008 i.e. the date when the interim direction has been issued by this court and the writ petition has been filed without making the pe rsons against whom allegations have been made as party respondents, the interim order dated 14.11.2008 requires to be vacated, which I accordingly do. In view of the above, the interim order dated 14.11.2008 stands vacated. Misc. cases disposed of.