WP(C) 5973/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 on 7.1.2011 is taken on reco rd. The petitioner, by the present petition, is praying for a direction to t he respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 3 namely the Chief Conserva tor of Forest, Assam to settle the Dharamtul Sand Mahal No. 3 pursuant to the no tice inviting tender dated 2.7.2009 for a period of two years contending that th ough he was the highest bidder no order of settlement order has been passed. I have heard Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Handique, learned State counsel for the respondents. Referring to the sale notice dated 2.7.2009 issued by the Divisional Forest Offi cer, it has been submitted by Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Dharamtul Sand Mahal was put to sale for a period of two years i.e. from 200 9-2011 and in response to it though the petitioner submitted his tender and his bid though was found to be the highest no final order has been passed settling t he said Sand Mahal in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Atia, therefore, submits that necessary direction may be issued to t he respondent authorities to settle the said Sand Mahal and if not possible, to grant the permit for extraction of sand from the said Mahal. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel placing reliance on the affidavit fi led by the respondent No. 3 has submitted that though the said Mahal was put to sale by issuing the aforesaid sale notice no final order could be passed because of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA 327/2009 whereby an d whereunder the State respondents were restrained from issuing any settlement o rder under the provision of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coups and Mahal Ru les, 1977 and until the Assam Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1994 is amended. It has also been submitted by Mr. Handique, learned State counsel that by virtu e of the aforesaid order dated 4.11.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Cour t, the settlement could at the most be made for a period of two months and that too after issuing necessary executive instruction adopting the procedure for suc h settlement. Mr. Handique, therefore, submits that the prayer made by the petit ioner in the writ petitioner may not be granted. It appears that the sale notice dated 2.7.2009 was issued by the Divisio nal Forest Officer for settlement of aforesaid Sand Mahal for the year 2009-2011 . The petitioner who filed the tender claims to be the highest bidder. According to the petitioner, no final order of settlement however, has been passed. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.11.2009 passed in WA N o. 327/2009 while directing the respondents to amend the provisions of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 restrained the State from making any settlement of the Sand Mahals until such amendment is made. By the said order liberty, how ever, was given to the State to issue necessary executive instruction for settle ment of the Minor Mineral lease by adopting such procedure as it may deem fit an d proper, for a maximum period of two months, as an interim measure i.e. till th e amendment of the aforesaid Rules. That being the position no settlement could be made though the sale noti ce was issued on 2.7.2009. No fault, therefore, can be found with the respondent authorities in not finalizing the process of settlement initiated by sale notic e dated 2.7.2009. Consequently the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be grante d. However, if the authority decides to settle the said sand mahal it may do so for a maximum period of two months by issuing necessary executive instruction as allowed vide the aforesaid order dated 4.11.2009 passed in WA No. 327/2009. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for such settlement, in case any notice for that purpose is issued. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.