WA 58/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL (Ranjan Gogoi, J) Heard Mr RP Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr PS Deka, le arned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for t he respondent No.8. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by a le arned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C ) No. 5428/2009. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the responde nt No. 8 has been allowed and the NITs dated 21.7.2009 and 27.3.2009, on the bas is of which the settlement of Katakhal River Sand Mahal No.1 was made with the a ppellant, have been set aside. Further, directions have been issued to the D.F.O , Hailakandi Division to issue fresh tender notice in accordance with law in res pect of the aforesaid Sand Mahal. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition took the view that in the present case the impugned NITs dated 21.7.2009 and 27.3.2009 were i ssued in violation of Rule 4 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mo hals, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules’). The learned Single Judge re corded the finding that while the first requirement under Rule 4 i.e. publicatio n of the NIT in a daily newspaper on two consecutive days was complied with, the requirement of such publication at least one month prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender was not followed, thereby, violating the provisions of Rule 4. In the present case, the NITs on the basis of which the settlement was m ade in favour of the appellant were issued in the edition of Silchar Times on 21 .7.2009 and 27.3.2009. The tenders were required to be filed by 3 p.m. of 1.8.20 09. From the above, it is crystal clear that though the first requirement of Rul e 4 has been complied with, the second requirement has been breached. The issue before this Court, therefore, would be whether the provisions of Rule 4 are mand atory, violation of which will result in nullification of the tender process. The twin conditions spelt out by Rule 4 of the Rules aim at serving publ ic interest not only by wide publication of the sale notice but also by giving s ufficient time to all concerned to participate in the tender process. Both the r equirements of Rule 4 are also calculated to bring in the best possible offers. The mandatory nature of the provisions of Rule 4 would seem to have been already indicated by this Court in the case of Bipin Chandra Phukan -vs- State of Assam & Ors., reported in AIR 1972 GHY 19 and in Anil Chandra Paul -vs- State of Assa m & Ors., reported in (1985) 1 GLR 230. That apart, from paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it appears that pursu ant to the impugned NITs only four persons had submitted tenders and the highest offer was that of the appellant i.e. Rs. 14,51,999/-. From the statements made in the aforesaid paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it also appears that there w as an earlier tender process (which was subsequently abandoned) wherein the appe llant had participated along with seven other tenderers and had offered a higher amount of Rs. 18,21,000/-. The somewhat lukewarm response to the impugned tende r notice and the highest amount offered i.e. Rs. 14,51,999/- can be explained by short period of time that was stipulated for submission of tender against the s tatutorily fixed period of one month. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider the present to be a fit ca se for admission for further examination of the above issue. We, accordingly, de cline to admit this writ appeal to regular hearing and maintain the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. Needless to say, till the process of re-tendering is over, the appellant / writ petitioner who is presently in possession of the Sand Mahal by payment of requisite kist money shall be allowed to continue. This will dispose of the writ appeal.