Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 595 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 28	 1966	 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 242 of 1964. Naunit Lal	 for the appellants. D. N. Mukherjee	 for the respondent. 299 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah	 C.J. The Divisional Forest Officer	 Kamrup Division	 Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to quarry stone from certain areas	 including Harengi Stone Quarry Mahal	 for the period July 1	 1963 to June 30	 1964. Mool Chand Sarougi hereinafter called 'the respondent ' submitted a tender accompanied by the requisite deposit of Rs. 100/ as earnest money	 and offered the rate of Rs. 5.25 per rupee of royalty. The tender	 submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the minimum quantity of 1	25	000 c. ft. of stone allotted to the respondent out of the quarry he was to pay Rs. 31	250/ . Intimation of acceptance of the tender was given to the respondent on July 13	 1963. One Baputi Ram	 a member of a scheduled tribe	 appealed ' against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer accepting the	 tender	 to the Government of Assam and obtained a stay order. After about three months he declined to prosecute the appeal and ' his appeal was dismissed. The respondent then declined to	 accept the settlement of the quarry. The Divisional Forest Officer invited fresh tenders. The offers made were not however accepted and tenders were invited again. On January 10	 1964 a settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 50	000 c. ft. for the period from January 25	 1964 to June 30	 1964 for Rs. 10	000/ The Divisional Forest Officer	 thereafter	 sought to recover the amount of Rs. 31	250/ for which the tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of land revenue in the manner provided by section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. The respondent then moved a petition in the High Court of Assam for an order quashing the proceeding for recovery of the amount demanded. The High Court held that the amount claimed was	 not recoverable under the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation	 VII of 1891 and passed an order quashing the proceeding for recovery and issued a mandamus to the Divisional Forest Officer	 Kamrup Division not to proceed with the recovery. The State of Assam has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court. Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 pro vides : "All money	 other than fines	 payable to Crown under this Regulation	 or under any rule made thereunder	 or on account of the price of any forest produce	 or of expenses incurred in the execution of this Regulation 300 in respect of any forest produce	 may	 if not paid when due	 be recovered under the law for the time	 being in force as if it were an arrear of land revenue. " The amount claimed to be due from the respondent is not on account of the price of any forest produce	 or of expenses incurred in the execution for recovery of any forest produce. The amount is also not due in the execution of the Regulation. So far there is common ground. It was claimed	 however	 that the amount was due under rule 10 promulgated in exercise of power under the Regulation and on that account it was recoverable as an arrear of land revnue. Rule 10 provides "No lease for any fixed period giving the right of removing India rubber	 cane	 kutcha or cutch	 lac	 agar	 ivory	 or any other forests produce shall be given otherwise than in accordance with the general or special orders of the Conservator who is empowered to authorise sales in respect of such leases	 by auction	 tender or any other method at such rates as he may decide in his discretion. " The Rule in our judgment does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the obligations 	of the tender by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891. It is again difficult to hold that stone is forest produce within the meaning of the Act. In any event the Rule does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money. It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the officers of the Forest Department to grant leases in respect of certain forest produce. Ile lease may not be granted except in accordance with the general or special orders of the Conservator who alone As empowered to authorise a sale in respect of such a lease. It is a rule relating to the exercise of power to grant leases. The High Court was	 in our judgment	 right in observing that the amount of damages for breach of the terms of the sale notice is not an amount due under the Regulation	 or rule 10 made thereunder. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.

The Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to quarry stone for the period July 1	 1963 to June 30	 1964. The tender submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the minimum quantity of 1	25	000 c.ft. of stone allotted to the res pondent he was to pay Rs. 31	250/ On appeal being filed against the order accepting the tender the Government of Assam granted stay of the order. When three months later the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution the respondent declined to accept settlement of the quarry. Thereafter tenders had to be invited again and it was only on January 10	 1964 that a settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 5000 c.ft. for the period from January 25	 1964 to June 30	 1964 for Rs. 10	000. The Divisional Forest Officer then sought to recover the amount of Rs. 31	250/ for which the tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of land revenue in the manner provided by section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. The respondent moved a petition in the High Court for an order quashing the proceeding for recovery of the amount demanded. The High Court allowed the petition. holding that the amount claimed was not recoverable under the aforesaid Regulation. The State of Assam appealed to this Court with certificate. It was conceded that the amount was not 'recoverable under section 75 of the Regulation but reliance was placed on Rule 10 of the rules made under the Regulation	 HELD The appeal must fail. Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the obligations of the tender by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891. It is again difficult to hold that 'stone ' is forest produce within the meaning of the Act. In any event the Rule does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money. It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the officers of the Forest Department to grant leases in respect of certain forest produce. The lease may not be granted except in accordance with the general or special order of the conservator who alone is empowered to authorise sale in respect of such a lease. [300 E F]