MC 3547/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent No .6 who has filed this application praying for recall of the interim order dated 3/7/2009, passed by this Court. By the aforesaid interim order, the settlement o f Morabharali Sand, Gravel and Earth Mahal No.1 was stayed by the Court by consi dering 2 specific averments i.e. (i) that settlement has been made secretly with out publication of any tender notice. (ii) an offer of Rs.16 lakhs received from another tenderer was considered defective and the much lower bid of the petitio ner at Rs.8 lakhs, was accepted for settlement. In this Misc. Case 3547/09 the applicant has demonstrated that the writ petition er had not approach this Court with clean hands inasmuch as contrary to his aver ments, tender notice was advertised in the newspaper on 8/5/2009 by the DFO, Tez pur and the settlement was granted in favour of the respondent No.6 only on the basis of the said tender notice. It further emerges that only 2 tenderers had responded to the advertisement date d 8/5/2008 out of which the offer of respondent No.6 was the highest at Rs.8 lak hs and the other offer was of Rs.7.50 lakhs. On this basis, Mr. N.K. Baruah contends that there is no justification for conti nuing the interim order which has been obtained by the writ petitioner through m is-representation. Mr. M.A. Sheikh submits that the publication of the tender notice in the newspap er was not in the petitioner’s knowledge and he further submits that the petitio ner received wrong information that an offer of Rs.16 lakhs was received and rej ected only to accommodate the respondent no.6. But now he concedes that petition er’s information were incorrect. However, Mr. Shiekh submits that the tender pro cess is in violation of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Assam Sale of Forest Pro duce, Coupes and Mahals Rules,1977. Having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that the interim order passed by this Court on 3/7/2009 shouldn’t be allowed to continue as the said order was p assed on mis-represented facts. Accordingly, the interim order stands vacated. Misc. Case allowed.