WA 8/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Hrishikesh Roy, J) Heard Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellan t. Also Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No. 7 (writ petitioner). Mrs. Goyel, learned Government Advocate makes representatio n on behalf of the official respondents. 2. This matter pertains to an extension order dated 25.8.2009 in respect of the Rukni River Sand Mahal. The mahal was initially settled w.e.f 10.6.05 for 2 years with Bul Bul Alam Choudhury (the writ appellant). It was re-settled with him for a further period from 25.6.07 to 24.6.09. The appellant applied on 29.5. 09 for extension of settlement which led to the impugned extension on 25.8.09. In the meantime through a fresh process, by order dated 10.6.2009, the M ahal was provisionally settled with Md. Basid Mia Talukdar the respondent No.7 ( writ petitioner) for 2009-2011. 3. The respondent No.7 filed W.P(C) No. 3779/2009 challenging the extension granted by contending that maximum 3 months extension is contemplated under Rul e 21(3) of the Rules and in no case extension, even if justified on merit, could be granted beyond 3 months. It was also contended that the extension granted wa s undeserved in view of the adverse report dated 28.7.2009 of the D.F.O., Silc har who reported that there is no basis for granting extension to the writ appel lant. 4. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant (respond ent No.7 in the writ proceeding) contends that the extension was granted in purs uant to the direction given by this Court on 03.08.2009 while disposing of W.P.( C) NO. 3105/2009 (filed by Bul Bul Alam Choudhury) by considering the Appeal fil ed by the writ appellant against settlement granted to the respondent (writ peti tioner). It is also contended that since the writ appellant was unable to extrac t the full quantity of sand during the operation of his settlement period, the e xtension granted to extract the balance quantity of sand was very much in order. 5. Challenging the extension granted and supporting the impugned judgment i n the writ proceeding Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel submits that in p ursuant to a settlement process initiated through N.I.T. dated 18.04.2009 where the appellant also participated and writ petitioner’s bid was found to be highes t, the writ petitioner has been settled with the Mahal in question and since the extension to the writ appellant was granted illegally by ignoring the adverse r eport of D.F.O., the extension cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Goswami also submits that in no case 6 months extension is contempla ted in law as under Rule 21(3) of the Rules, maximum three months extension can only be granted in deserving cases. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also referred to the decisio n of this Court passed in Prabin Kr. Das Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2007(3) GLT 1016 to contend that since the period of settlement granted to the writ appellant expired on 24.06.2009, the impugned extension on 25.08.2009 could not have been granted, after expiry of the settlement period. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions made by the rival counsel, we hav e examined the report dated 28.07.2009 of the D.F.O. submitted to the Conservato r of Forests on the representation filed by the writ appellant. In this report, it is clearly reflected that the settlement holder did not suffer for scarcity o f sand in the Sand Mahal as was claimed by him. It is further indicated in the r eport that the settlement holder failed to deposit the sales tax on his kist due s, in violation of the terms of settlement and that the settlement holder did no t apply for extension within the time stipulated by law. 7. We find herein that notwithstanding the above adverse report against gra nting of extension and ignoring the said report dated 28.7.2009, the impugned ex tension has been granted on 25.08.2009. The extension order itself does not disc lose any reason in support of the extension granted in favour of the writ appell ant. 8. No doubt, the forest authorities could have considered a prayer for exte nsion but they ought to have considered such prayer on the basis of relevant mat erials. 9. As we have already noted that the report of the jurisdictional D.F.O. w as against granting of extension and under such circumstances it is difficult fo r us to hold that the Govt. was justified in granting extension to the settlemen t holder, in the face of the report dated 28.7.2009. 10. We also find that the writ appellant’s settlement term has already expir ed on 24.6.2009 and for the fresh season (2009-2011) the settlement has been gra nted to the writ petitioner on 10.6.2009 (Annexure-C). Therefore, particularly i n view of the decision of this Court in Prabin Kr. Das (Supra) that extension s hould not be granted after expiry of the settlement period, the impugned extensi on cannot in our view, be sustained in law. 11. It also appears to be a case of non application of mind when extension f or 6 months was granted, as Rule 21(3) does not contemplate an extension beyond 3 months. 12. We also find here that because of the impugned extension the settlement granted to the writ petitioner after a valid tender process has not been made op erational. This is clearly causing injustice to the settlement holder who is den ied the benefit of the settlement. 13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not deserve interference as we are in agreement with the conclusion and the reas oning of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly this Writ Appeal is held to be wi thout any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. As the writ appeal is dismissed, the settlement granted in favour of the respondent No.7 (writ petitioner) is ordered to be made operational forthwith.