WP(C) 3344/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P Roy, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Heard also Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6, namely, Bashid Mia Talukdar, was a lessee in respe ct of Rukni River Sand Mahal under Cachar Forest Division. On expiry of the peri od of lease, the said sand mahal was put to sale. Pursuant to the short sale not ice, which was published, in this regard, by the State respondents, the present petitioner and some others including respondent No. 6 participated in the select ion process for obtaining settlement of the said sand mahal. The petitioner was, however, selected for settlement, he being the highest bidder and was informed by the respondents/authorities concerned to deposit the first installment. Howev er, the kist money, offered by the petitioner, was refused to be accepted by the respondents/authorities concerned on the ground that an appeal had been preferr ed by respondent No. 6 herein under Rule 9 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produces, Coupe and Mohal Rules, 1977 (as amended by Rules 2000), whereby respondent No. 6 had sought for extension of the period of his lease. Aggrieved by the refusal of the State respondents to accept the kist money, which the petitioner had offe red, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In the meanwhile, however, as transpires from the materials placed on record, respondent No. 6 had already fil ed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave ri se to WP(C) No. 3105/2009, and the said writ petition was disposed of, on 03-08- 2009, with the following directions: In view of the aforesaid submission, the present writ petition is disposed of w ith a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Environment and Forest Department, Government of Assam to consider and dispose of the appeal, dated 22- 06-2009, in the event such appeal has been filed and has not been disposed of ti ll date. Such disposal, if pending, shall be made within a period of 2 (two) wee ks from today. The petitioner by 7th August, 2009 shall file a certified copy of the order passed today before the said authority for compliance. On taking up of this writ petition, it, now, transpires that respondent No. 6 has succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as his list has been extended for a f urther period of six months. Situated thus, it becomes clear that until the orde r, dated 28-07-2009, whereby the appeal has been disposed of, is interfered with , no relief, as has been sought for, by the present petitioner, can be granted t o the present petitioner. Situated thus, Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the p etitioner, submits that the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach this Court with appropriate application, in future, if so a dvised. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, t his writ petition is disposed of on being withdrawn by the petitioner with liber ty given to the petitioner to approach this Court with appropriate application(s ), in future, if so advised