SARJOO PROSAD C. J.: The petitioner, Krishnapada Coomar and Co. Ltd.. a joint stock company incorporated in this State, has presented this application under Art. 22T3 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ on the respondents, directing them to forbear from giving effect to their proposal for settlement of cane mahal Nc. III of Darrang Division with M/S. Singapore Cane Manufacturing Co. of 137 Canning Street, Calcutta (respondent No. 6). (2) The petitioner claims that it is a private limited company, having its registered office at Naojan in the district of Sibsagar, Assam, and that it has been carrying on business of extract­ing cane in Assam ever since its inception. The settlement of exclusive rights to cut and collect cane from the forest areas of the State, which have been divided into different mahals, is, in practice, made by auction, and bids are invited from intending lessees for settlement in accord­ance with title terms contained in the notices for sale. In pursuance of a sale notice, dated, Tezpur, the 21st May, 1954, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. Darrang Division, advertising for sale the exclusive right to cut and collect canes from Ma­hal No. Ill of Darrang Division by public auction for a period of three years, the petitioner bid at the said auction sale and offered the highest bid of Rs. 41,000/-. There were other bidders at that sale in addition to respondent No. 7, M/s. Assam Canes Ltd., whose bid went up to Rs. 37,000/-only. The Government, however, called upon the petitioner to produce proof of its domicile in As­sam, and eventually refused to ratify the sale in favour of the petitioner in spite of its highest bid. It appears that having refused to confirm the settlement with the petitioner, the Government directed that the settlement should be made with respondent No. 7, whose bid was for Rs. 37,000/-only. This respondent, however, failed to deposit the security and to pay any kist of the royalty under the terms of the sale notice, and consequent­ly the Government re-advertised the mahal for sale. This was held at the risk of respondent No. 7 on 25-6-55 for the period from 15th July, 1955 to 31st August 1057, under notification dated 28-5-55. At this re-sale again, the petitioner's bid happened to be the highest. This was held at the risk of respondent No. 7 on 25-6-55 for the period from 15th July, 1955 to 31st August 1057, under notification dated 28-5-55. At this re-sale again, the petitioner's bid happened to be the highest. It is stated by the petitioner that the respon­dent No. 6. M/s. Singapore" Cane Manufacturing Company, was not allowed to bid at this auction sale because it could not submit any income-fax assessment certificate as required under Cl. 12 of the sale notice. This time again, the Government refused to settle the cane cutting and collecting right in the mahal with the petitioner. The peti­tioner tried its best to induce the Government to accept its offer, but could not succeed; and in the end. it appears Bhat the Government again direct­or the mahal to be put up to sale under notifica­tion dated 29-7-55. for a period of two years from 1-9-55 to 31-8-57, again at the risk of respondent No. 7. The sale was accordingly held on 18-8-55, and this time again the petitioner, who bid at the auction sale, gave the highest bid at Rs. 18,1017-, while the respondent No. 6 was the second highest bidder at Rs. 18,0257- only. It appears that, the auction was finally closed with the acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that it also signed and executed a declara­tion in the specified form, as required by Cl. 14 of the relevant sale notice. The highest bid in this instance being below Rs. 25.000/-, under the terms of the sale notice, the sale had to be ap­proved by the Conservator of Forests. The petitioner appears to have fared as un­favourably on this occasion as it did on previous occasions, and received no orders of confirmation of the sale in its favour by the Conservator of Forests until it learnt from a telegram that the cane mahal was sought to be settled by the Gov­ernment with respondent No. 6. It appears that the Government have sent a proposal to respon­dent, No. 6 suggesting that subject to its accept­ance of certain terms, the cane mahal might be settled with the latter. The said order reads as follows: "Government orders settling cane mahal three of Darrang Division with you at rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and one, subject to no claim made by you for delayed settlement and subject to sale notice conditions. The said order reads as follows: "Government orders settling cane mahal three of Darrang Division with you at rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and one, subject to no claim made by you for delayed settlement and subject to sale notice conditions. Confirm your acceptance." The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the above order of settlement to the Conservator of Forests. Assam, as contemplated by Cl. 7 of the sale-notice, dated 29-7-55, but its appeal was dismissed by an order, dated 8-10-55. (3) The argument of the petitioner is that the Government had acted arbitrarily in refusing to grant the settlement to the petitioner Of the cane mahal in question in spite of the petitioner's giving the highest, bid at the time of sale and in spite of the fact that its bid had been accepted by the officer conducting the sale. The contention of the petitioner in the first place is that the reasons for making a discrimi­nation between the petitioner and the other bid­ders, namely, respondents Nos. 6 and 7, were con­stitutionally invalid and not well founded even on facts. It further contends that under the sale notice the Government had no right to interfere with the sale and that the only authority who was au­thorised to confirm the sale was the Conservator of Forests, Assam; and that, therefore, the order passed by the Government is entirely unjustified and illegal. It is further urged that in substance the Conservator of Forests had confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner, its bid being the high­est: but he erroneously referred the matter to the Government without proceeding to act on his own discretion which, according to the sale notice, he was bound to do. (4) It is undisputed that the petitioner's bid was the highest bid in the sale, and it is not alleg­ed that in any other respect the petitioner had failed to conform to the terms of the sale notice. The rules on the point do not show that the Government reserved any right to refuse to make a settlement in favour of the highest bidder, and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that they have to depend almost entirely upon the terms of the sale notice for the validity or otherwise of the step taken by the Government. Paragraph 7 of the sale notice dated 29-7-55 runs as follows: "The acceptance of the bids is subject to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, and in the case of any bid in excess of Rs 5000/-Rs. 25,000/- being accepted by the officer holding the sale, the sale will be subject to confirmation by the Conservator/Government, as the cafe may be. and that any person wishing to; represent against the sale, must file an appeal for the Con­servator, through the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang, within 14 days from the date of com­munication of the acceptance of the bid of the successful bidder. The contract exceeding the above sums will be executed by the Conservator/ Government as the case may be." It. is rightly urged by Mr. Ghose en behalf of the petitioner that in this case, the bid being below' Rs. 25,000/-, the authorty competent to confirm the sale was the Conservator of Forests, Assam. This position is conceded by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. That being so, there, can be no doubt that, on that terms of the sale notice, it was the Conservator of Forests, Assam, who was the only authority competent to confirm or to refuse to confirm the sale. A point has arisen as to whe­ther it was open to the authority to refuse to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder. In the rules or even in the terms of the sale notice, there is no indication whatsoever that, any such right was reserved, and I am inclined to think that the confirmation was almost in the nature of a formal confirmation of the highest bid, subject to the terms of the sale notice having been otherwise fulfilled by the bidder, or subject to the sale having been held according to the terms mentioned therein. Whenever the Govern­ment have reserved a right to accept or not to accept the highest bid, relevant rules have been prescribed as such; for instance, in the care of settlement by auction of fisheries, or in the case of certain settlements by auction under the Settle­ment Manual. Clause 7 here speaks merely of confirmation of sale, and not of the highest) bid, which means, in other words, that, if the sale is otherwise valid, it will have to be confirmed. Clause 7 here speaks merely of confirmation of sale, and not of the highest) bid, which means, in other words, that, if the sale is otherwise valid, it will have to be confirmed. In the absence of any such reservation, ordi­narily there is no reason why the highest bid, once the auction sale is closed, should not be ac­cepted by the authority holding the sale. I am, therefore, of the opinion that subject to all other terms being fulfilled, the acceptance of the bid by the Conservator of Forests was almost a for­mal matter. But in any case, it is contended on behalf of the State by Mr. Medhi that there was no such confirmation of the sale by the Conser­vator of Forests in the present, case. He claims that by dismissing the appeal, the Conservator of Forests did, in substance, refuse to confirm the sale. The petitioner, however, relies upon a letter sent by the Conservator of Forests, Assam, to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest Department, dated 3-9-55. In paragraph 3 of the said letter, it is observed that in the opinion of the Senior Conservator of Forests, in the absence of any keen competition, the price was 'not likely to go up any more, specially when a complete year from the (mahal) period of three years had already expired; and hence the officer felt that the mahal might be settled with the highest bidder. Mr. Ghose contends that it is quite clear from this observation in the letter in question that the officer was inclined to accept the highest bid of the petitioner and to make settlement in its favour, but being under the erroneous impression that the matter had to be approved by the Government, the officer sent this letter to the Secretary to the Gov­ernment of Assam, Forest Department. It is suggested that so far as the officer was concerned, he had communicated his approval of the acceptance of the bid of the petitioner. Mr. Medhi, however, argues that this letter had not been sent by the Senior Conservator of Forests himself, but appears to have been signed by one Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee, who was not the Senior Conservator of Forests and, therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the officer had given his approval to the settlement with the petitioner. It is difficult to accept this contention of Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee, who was not the Senior Conservator of Forests and, therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the officer had given his approval to the settlement with the petitioner. It is difficult to accept this contention of Mr. Medhi because in the usual course, a though the letter may have been signed by Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee, it appears to have been signed on behalf of the Senior Conservator of Forests, and it is stated in the petition filed before us by the petitioner that when the bid list was forwarded to the Conservator of Forests, Assam, for confirma­tion. Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee, Deputy Conserva­tor of Forests, Assam, acting on behalf of th3 Conservator of Forests, Assam, recommended the settlement of the mahal with the petitioner. It is not clear from the record whether Mr. Bhattacharjee was actually acting on his own behalf or in behalf of the Conservator of Forests. In any case, the position has become somewhat doubtful in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Under the rules given in the sale no­tice, it was really the duty of the Conservator of Forests to confirm the sale and accept the bid offered by the petitioner, because in this case, the bid was for an amount above Rs. 5000/- but below Rs. 25,000/-. The officer concerned having failed to exercise his duty, we think that the matter should go back to him to enable him to exercise his own discretion in the matter in the light of the observations which I have already made earlier. The case falls within the principle of the de­cision given by the Supreme Court in Commis­sioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 (A). In that case, under the rules framed under S. 22 of the City of Bombay Police Act. 1902. it was held that the only person vested with authority to grant or refuse to grant a li­cence for the erection of a building to be used for purposes of public amusement, was the Com­missioner of Police, and that it was also clear that under the rules, the said officer had been vested with the absolute discretion at any time to cancel or suspend any licence which had been granted. It was further held that the power to do so was vested in him, and not in the State Government. and. It was further held that the power to do so was vested in him, and not in the State Government. and. as such, could only be exercised by him at his discretion, and inasmuch as the order in question in that case was an order of cancellation not made by the Commissioner of Police him­self, but merely an intimation sent by him of an order passed by another authority, namely, the Government of Bombay, the order could net !:e upheld. In this case also, as we have seen there is no rule on the point except the rules mention­ed in the pale notice, and under those rules, the discretion to approve or 'not to approve of the sale law with the Conservator of Forests, and not with the Government, and the order of Govern­ment, therefore, proposing to make a settlement in favour of respondent No. 6. in derogation of I the sale, has to beset aside and a direction given to the Conservator of Forests to exercise a pro­per discretion in the matter. (5) We are unable to entertain the extremes contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that it was open to the Government, under the law, to settle the right of cutting and collecting cane in the said mahal in any manner they liked. We have not discovered anything in the pertinent rules or in the sale notices concerned to justify such an action. In undertaking com­mercial transactions, the Government are in no better "position than any other individual, provid­ed they have some statutory provisions or rules on the point to guide them, and subject to which the transactions are to be conducted. In such cases, the Government can take advantage of those provisions; but even in those cases, the Government are as much bound by the provisions as the persons dealing with them. The person, so dealing, is then aware of the position in which he stands with the Govern­ment, and is not left to the tender mercies of the authorities who transact business for the Govern­ment, so that in case of any violation of the rele­vant rules and provisions, he is entitled to seek his appropriate remedies. In this case, we have not found anything in the rules, except clause 7 in the sale notice. In this case, we have not found anything in the rules, except clause 7 in the sale notice. As I pointed out, the only exception provided was that under this clause, the sale was to be confirmed by the Conservator of Forests, and that in case where the bid was higher than Rs. 25,000/-, the authority to confirm was the Government; otherwise, after the close of the auction and the fall of the hammer, the deal in favour of the petitioner would have been final. (6) In the view which we have taken of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other question as to whether the alleged discri­mination against the petitioner made by the authorities concerned was in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. There may be something in the contention of the petitioner that it was neces­sary and undesirable to rake up the question of its domicile when it was admittedly already a lessee under the Government in respect of other mahals. and its suitability, as such, could not be Questioned. The petitioner further contends that it has been for a long time a resident of Sibsagar. Be that as it may, the result of the discrimi­nation in this case, whether right or wrong, has been obviously quite unfortunate on the public exchequer. The Government have not only lost the advantage of the highest bid of RP. 41,000/- offered by the petitioner, but even the person in whose favour they wanted to discriminate, was unable to pay any portion of the royalty so much so that within a short time they were compelled again to put up to sale the mahal its question, at the risk of the respondent No. 7. They may now have to embark upon further litigation in order to recover, if possible, the Government dues, against the person concerned, and they were even compelled to resort to the expense and incon­venience of holding sales from time to time in order to settle the mahal, although the period for which the settlement was to be made was fast running out; and all this because the Govern­ment would not see their way to accept the bid offered by the petitioner, which admittedly was the highest bid at every successive sale. The mahal, also has been out of use during all this period as no cane could be extracted. The mahal, also has been out of use during all this period as no cane could be extracted. In dealing with the application, we are conscious of the fact that only about three months of the period for which the settlement could operate now remains to expire; but we find it necessary to set aside the order petitioned against because the Conservator of Forests, Assam, has failed to perform his obligation, under which it was entirely In his discretion to affirm or not to affirm the sale, subject to the rules or terms mentioned in the sale notice. It is not for us to point out that the policy of discrimination, if carried to the detriment of public interest and in the (Dec.) 1957 Assam D.F./12 manner disclosed by the facts of this case, is likely to prove destructive 01 Indigenous enterprise and economics. (7) With the above observations, the rule is made absolute. We do not propose to make any order for costs. (8) I may add that it would be also open to the Conservator of Forests, Assam, in view of the fact that the original period of three years for which the settlement was contemplated is now about to expire, to hold a fresh sale, if neces­sary. DEKA J.: (8a) This petition is under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Krishnapada Coomar and Co., Ltd., against certain Government orders purporting to be passed in connection with the settlement of a cane mahal, designated as Mahal No. Ill of Darrang Division, with respon­dent No. 6. M/s. Singapore Cane Manufacturing Co.. and a writ is prayed for quashing the settlement with respondent No. 6, and for direct­ing that the sale in favour of the petitioner should be held as completed. There is much in the petition which, in my estimation, is purely unnecessary except to raise some suspicion and prejudice against the provin­cial Government against whom it is alleged, inter alia, that it was out of mala fides that toe settle­ment of the cane mahal with the petitioner was ieiused. My Lord the Chief Justice has dealt at length with the facts of this case and I need not "recapitulate them except to say that the earlier settlement of the mahal or the cancellation there­of is nobody's concern. My Lord the Chief Justice has dealt at length with the facts of this case and I need not "recapitulate them except to say that the earlier settlement of the mahal or the cancellation there­of is nobody's concern. The petitioner has not come to this Court against the order of refusing settlement of the mahal or of re-sales which were held on earlier occasions. The only order that is challenged was subse­quent to 18-8-55 on which date the third auction was held, when the petitioner offered a bid for Rs. 18,101/- as against the bid of respondent No. 6 for Rs. 18,025/-, for settlement of the cane mahal for a period of two years from 1-9-55 to 31-8-57. The order of settlement of the mahal in fa­vour of anybody does not seem to have been ap­proved by the Conservator of Forests, Assam, though there is a contention cm behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the sale was' confirm­ed by Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee purporting to act on behalf of the Conservator. (9) Clearly, the difficulty is not because there is mala fide on the part of the Government or of anybody as such, but that the rules framed for the purpose of settling the forest mahals are very inadequate. The only rule to which our attention has Been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Rule No. 10, which is stated to have the force of law, and it runs as follows: "10. No lease for any fixed period giving the right of removing India rubber, cane, kutcha or cutch. lac, agar, ivory, or any other forest 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 lays down that no lease for any fixed period, even with regard to the cane mahals, could be given otherwise than in accordance with the general or special orders of the Conservator of Forests 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. There is no allegation that this rule has been violated. There is no allegation that this rule has been violated. The Government or the Conservator of Forests perforce had to supplement the conditions of sale1-which they did by a notice dated 28-7-55. The authorities concerned felt that the conditions could not be sufficiently advertised by the notice alone, and that is why they insert­ed paragraph 3 in the notice itself. It says: "Particulars of the conditions of the agree­ment and any further particulars required, can be seen at the Divisional Forest Office, Tezpur, during office hours." Therefore, the sale normally would be held 'under the conditions notified by the notice of 29-7-55 along with the subsidiary rules of proce­dure as might be available in the Divisional For­est Office. There is no much dispute as to the relevancy of the conditions of sale, and the only point that) is pertinent is stated in paragraph 7 of the notice, to which my Lord the Chief Justice has referred in his judgment. It is agreed by both parties that in cases of sales in between Ks. 5.000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. the same will have to be confirmed by the Conservator of Forests, Assam, and that any bid for a sum exceeding Rs. 25,000/-will have to be confirmed by the State 'Govern­ment. Here the earlier sale was for a sum of Rs. 41.000/- and at that stage the sale or the lease had to be approved by the State Government, which they refused to do in favour of the peti­tioner for reasons best known to them,-which we can hardly dissect. I see no materials, nor am I prepared to accept tie suggestion that the confir­mation of the sale had been refused on the ground of the petitioner not being a bona fide resident of this province or for not having a domicile cer­tificate. There might have been some enquiry on that point, but I do not consider that that amounts to discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitu­tion, nor has that point been actually canvassed before us by the learned advocate for the peti­tioner in the instant case. It is clear that even respondent No. 6 does not claim to be a resident of this province, and the discrimination in the present case, as alleged, does not seem to be on the ground of domicile, which has been sought to be insinuated on. It is clear that even respondent No. 6 does not claim to be a resident of this province, and the discrimination in the present case, as alleged, does not seem to be on the ground of domicile, which has been sought to be insinuated on. (10) To me, it appears that the confusion was at a certain official level and particularly with the Forest Department. The letter of Mr. M. C. Bhattacharjee purported to have been written for the Senior Conservator of Forests, dated 3-9-55, does nowhere say that the matter received the con­sideration of the Conservator of Forests, Assam, who was rather against the confirmation of the sale in favour of the petitioner, as appears from the appellate order passed by him. The letter deals, inter alia, with the earlier sale or settle­ment in favour of M/s. Assam Canes Ltd., which subsequently failed, and the concern of the De­partment was to realise the deficit from the Com­pany. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assam, Mr. M. O. Bhattacharjee. was in favour of ac­cepting the petitioner's bid for Rs. 13,1017- in the circumstances of the case. That the Conserva­tor of Forests, Assam, had not accepted this pro­posal or confirmed it. is clear from the order pass­ed by him at the appellate stage. There are several letters in the file before us to show that Mr. Bhattacharjee, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Assam, used to write his letters to the Government as "from the Conservator of Forests" on the top of each letter. I am, therefore, very reluctant to accept the contention of Mr. Ghose that this letter of 3-9-55 by Mr. Bhattacharjee for the Senior Conservator of Forests actually am­ounted to an opinion of the Conservator of For­ests himself. In these circumstances, I cannot uphold the contention on behalf of the petitioner that at any time the Conservator of Forests confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner on the strength of the bid that was given by him on 18-8-55. What, as a matter of fact, appears to be the Sale of things is that there has been no settlement in favour of anybody with regard to the cane mahal in Question. The telegram (copy) that has been produced before us indicates that the Govern­ment wanted to make the settlement of the mahal in favour of respondent No. 6 for the identical amount for which the petitioner gave a bid. The telegram (copy) that has been produced before us indicates that the Govern­ment wanted to make the settlement of the mahal in favour of respondent No. 6 for the identical amount for which the petitioner gave a bid. I, for myself, would like to say that this sort of offering settlement to persons who have not ac­tually given the bid on which the settlement is sought to be made, is not supported by the roles of procedure. The Forest Department seem to have suppos­ed that since the original bid was for a sum ex­ceeding Rs. 25,000/-, that is, for a sum of Rs. 41,000/-, subsequent approval to the acceptance of the bid for Rs. 18,101/- of 18-8-55 also bad to be given by the Government. There, they were, of course, wrong because, according to tile con­ditions of sale, as admitted, it would be for the Conservator to approve of the present bid, and not the State Government. The offer of settle­ment by the Government could not be supported by the rules as they exist, or by the conditions of sale as advertised by the Conservator of Forests. Therefore, the only alternative would be that the matter should go back to the Conservator of For­ests, Assam, for consideration as to whether the sale in favour of the petitioner deserves approval or not. Though it has been argued, with some vehe­mence, that there was mala fides in the matter of settlement of the mahal, there is no fact or cir­cumstance to substantiate the same except that & cloud has been tried to be-raised as to discrimina­tion on the ground of domicile, which has not support from the record or from the conduct of either party. The petitioner company itself did not really come against the earlier order, which it alleged or sought to allege, was based on the ground of discrimination. (11) Much reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Goswami K. N. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 (B). where really there were specific rules for settlement with regard to Excise shops. (11) Much reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Goswami K. N. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 (B). where really there were specific rules for settlement with regard to Excise shops. Here, in the conditions of sale as advertised, there has teen no illegality, but there have been some irregularities in -the matter of approval of the sale, since the Conservator did not express his mind as to the approval of the sale, as contained in para­graph 7 of the sale notice. In view, however, of the fact that the period of settlement has practically terminated, and in view of the observations made by his Lordship Bose. J., in the Supreme Court decision aforesaid, it will be open to the Conservator of Forests, Assam, either to exercise his discretion as to ap­proval of the sale or to consider whether the mahal should or should not be re-sold, since the settle­ment had not been finalised so long, and fie period for settlement is going to expire by September next. (12) The Rule is made absolute to the above extent. I agree that there should be no order as to costs. M.K.S. Order accordingly.