WP(C) 2453/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner, who submitted tender for settlement of S hilghagiri Hill Stone Quarry No.2 for the period of 2009-11, by the present appl ication, has challenged the order dated 22-05-2009 passed by the Chief Conservat or of Forests (T) settling the said stone quarry with the respondent No.6, Sri T railokya Roy, at Rs.26,03,555/- for the said period. 2. A sale notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Office r, Aie Valley Division inviting sealed tender for settlement of three stone quar ries, which includes Shilghagiri Hill Stone Quarry No.2 for the period 2009-11 f ixing 20-03-2009 as last date for filing such sealed tender. The petitioner, th e respondent No.2 and 2 (two) others submitted their tenders for the said stone quarry, offering the following bids:- 1. Sri Khanindra Medhi (the petitioner) :- 6,50,000/- 2. Sri Trailokya Roy (the respondent No.6) :-26,05,555/- 3. Sri Tareni Baruah :-6,00,1 00/- 4. Sri Satya Ram Baruah :-5,25,0 00/- 3. At the time of opening of the tender papers on 20-03-200 9, an envelop containing a communication addressed to the Divisional Forest Offi cer dated 20-03-2009 was also found in the tender box, whereby and whereunder th e respondent No.6 stated to have withdrawn his bid for settlement of the aforesa id stone quarry alongwith another stone quarry. A comparative statement was ther eafter, prepared by the forest official on 20-03-2009 reflecting the bids offere d by each of the tenderers including the petitioner and the respondent No.6. Th ere is, however, an endorsement made by the forest official to the effect that t he respondent No.6 has applied for withdrawal of the bid to the following effect :- Trailokya Roy applied for withdrawal of from Bid from S ilghagri 1 & 2 was found in the Tender Box. The said note contains the signatures of three persons, namely Chandra Biswas, Sahadat Hussain and Kamal Kr. Sharma, who were not the te nderers. 4. The respondent No.6 coming to know about such applicatio n, on 20-03-2009 itself filed an application before the Divisional Forest Office r intimating the said authority that he never filed any application withdrawing from the tender process. The Divisional Forest Officer thereafter, vide communi cation dated 02-04-2009 informed the Conservator of Forest, Lower Assam Social F orestry Circle relating to the offers made by each of the bidders including the petitioner and respondent No.6 and also about the existence of the application p urportedly filed by the respondent No.6 withdrawing from the tender process and also subsequent application filed. Further communication has also been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer on 13-05-2009 to the Conservator of Forest recomm ending not to accept the respondent No.6’s communication dated 20-03-2009 intima ting the Divisional Forest Officer that he has not withdrawn the tender process and to settle the said stone quarry in favour of the petitioner, he being the hi ghest bidder after the respondent No.6. The Conservator of Forest, however, did not accept the recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer and vide communi cation dated 20-05-2009 informed the Chief Conservator of Forest (T), the settli ng authority, about the filing of the subsequent application dated 20-03-2009 by the respondent No.6 intimating the Divisional Forest Officer that he has never withdrawn from the tender process and suggesting that the stone quarry may be se ttled with the respondent No.6 he having offered 26,03,555/- against the bid val ue for the year 2007-09 of Rs.23,01,000/-. The settling authority thereafter, p assed the impugned order dated 22-05-2009 provisionally settling the said quarry in favour of the respondent No.6 at his offered bid, subject to the appeal unde r the provisions of the Assam Sale of Forest Produced, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977. 5. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appe al before the Chief Conservator of Forest (T) on 09-06-2009, during pendency of which, the present writ petition has been filed on 20-06-2009. After filing of the said writ petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appell ate authority has been dismissed vide order dated 22-06-2009. 6. I have heard Mr. SP Roy, the learned counsel for the pet itioner and Mr. RK Bora, the learned counsel for the State respondents as well a s Mr. AC Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6, the settlement holder. 7. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has subm itted that the respondent No.6 having once withdrawn from the tender process by filing the application dated 20-03-2009, no settlement can be made in his favour , as has been done in the instant case by the settling authority. Referring to the comparative statement prepared by the forest official, which has been annexe d as Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6, whi ch is also available on record as produced by the learned State Counsel, Mr. Roy has submitted that it is apparent from the note appended to such comparative st atement that an application filed by the respondent No.6 was found in the tender box and such application was dated 20-03-2009 and the respondent No.6 by puttin g signature in such comparative statement prepared has accepted such endorsement made by the forest official and in presence of the witnesses, therefore, cannot subsequently turn around and say that he did not file the application withdrawi ng from the tender process, as has been done by the respondent No.6 by filing th e subsequent application dated 20-03-2009. Mr. Roy, therefore, submits that the authority cannot take into consideration the bid offered by the respondent No.6 and has to take a decision on the tender process initiated without taking into a ccount such bid offered by the respondent No.6. 8. Mr. Bora, the learned State Counsel supporting the order passed by the settling authority has submitted that it is evident from the comm unication dated 20-03-2009, which is available on record, that the respondent No .6 on coming to know about the filing of an application purportedly by him withd rawing from the tender process, has intimated the Divisional Forest Officer that he has not filed such application and has not withdrawn from the tender process and, therefore, the authority has not committed any illegality in settling the quarry in favour of the respondent No.6, he being the highest bidder and in the absence of any allegation that the tender papers submitted by him was defective. 9. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the respond ent No.6 has also submitted that he never filed the application withdrawing from the bids and as soon as it came to his notice about filing of such application purportedly by him, he has immediately filed the application on 20-03-2009, i.e. the date of opening of the tender paper, intimating the Divisional Forest Offic er that he has never withdrawn the tender process. According to Mr. Sarma, he h aving not filed the application withdrawing from the tender process, the Conserv ator of Forests has rightly recommended settlement of the quarry in question in favour of the highest bidder, i.e. the respondent No.6, which has been accepted by the settling authority. 10. It appears from the records produced by the learned Stat e Counsel that a communication dated 20-03-2009 stated to have filed by the resp ondent No.6 was found in the tender box, whereby and whereunder the Divisional F orest Officer was informed about the withdrawal from the tender process. It als o appears from the record that the respondent No.6 on coming to know about such application immediately filed an application dated 20-03-2009 addressed to the D ivisional Forest Officer informing him that he never filed any application dated 20-03-2009 withdrawing from the tender process. The comparative statement prep ared by the forest official, which is also available on record, i.e. the registe r maintained by the Aie Valley Division relating to the bids offered by differen t mahals, reveals that the officials of the forest department prepared the same by taking in account the bid of the respondent No.6 also. Such comparative state ment has been signed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No.6 apart f rom one Sahadat Hussain, Chakra Biswas and Uday Ray, who were not the tenderers, but in whose presence the comparative statement was prepared. Below the signat ures of those persons, a note has been made by the Departmental Officer, which h as already been quoted above. Below such note, signatures of three persons, name ly Chandra Biswas, Sahadat Hussain and Kamal Kr. Sharma appears in proof of maki ng such note. The said note, however, does not bear the signature of either the petitioner or the respondent No.6. Hence, it cannot be said that such note was put in presence of the respondent No.6 and he has accepted the same. 11. The respondent No.6, as noticed above, has field the app lication dated 20-03-2009 intimating the Divisional Forest Officer that he never filed any application withdrawing his bid. The Conservator of Forests by the c ommunication dated 13-05-2009 has accepted the contention of the respondent No.6 and recommended to the settling authority for settlement of the stone quarry in favour of the highest bidder, i.e. the respondent No.6, and accordingly the set tling authority settled the stone quarry in favour of the respondent No.6, keepi ng in view the fact that in any case the quarry cannot be settled in favour of t he petitioner, who is the second highest bidder after the respondent No.6 and of fered Rs.6,50,000/- as the last settlement was made for the year 2007-09 at Rs.2 3,01,000/-. No illegality has been committed by the settling authority in passi ng the order of settlement, accepting the contention of the respondent No.6 abou t non filing of the application withdrawing his bid. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, the same is dismissed. No cost. The records as produced by the learned State Counsel are returned.