GOSWAMI, C. J.: The dispute in this writ application centres round the settle­ment of Khoraghat Sand cum Gravel Mahal No. 1 of Dhubri division for the years 1969-71. A sale notice dated 27th August, 1969 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara West Division under the provisions of the Assam Settle­ment of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules. 1967, inviting seal­ed tenders for settlement of the said Mahal was published in the Assam Gazette on 17th September, 1969. The petitioner along with two others submit­ted their tenders. The petitioner was the highest bidder offering outright price of Rs. 87,227/- for the Mahal and Respon­dent No. 5 offered a sum of Rs. 71.750/-. As the Mahal was for more than Rs. 50,000/-, the Governor was the final settling authority and by order dated 13th November, 1969, the said Mahal was settled with the respondent No. 5 at the highest bid offered by the petitioner, namely, Rs. 87,227/- for the entire period. The petitioner made a review application to the Governor against the settlement order and the same was rejected on 5th January. 1970. Hence this writ applica­tion under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the settlement order in favour of the respondent No. 5. 2. Settlement of forest coupes and mahals by tender system is now govern­ed by Rules framed under Sections 33, 34 and 72 (e) of the Assam Forest Regula­tion, VII of 1891, on 25th September, 1967 and published in the Assam Gazette on 8th November, 1967. These Rules are called "the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967", hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. We should now notice some material provisions of these Rules. Rule 3 provides for a notice calling for tender for settlement of mahal and it shall be published in the official gazette not less than 15 days before the last date fixed for submission of tender. Rule 4 provides for particulars to be included in the said notice. Rule 5 relates to earnest money. Rule 6, which is important, may be set out: "6. Tender and its enclosures:- (1) There shall be a separate tender for each coupe or mahal with the requisite court-fee affixed to it. Rule 4 provides for particulars to be included in the said notice. Rule 5 relates to earnest money. Rule 6, which is important, may be set out: "6. Tender and its enclosures:- (1) There shall be a separate tender for each coupe or mahal with the requisite court-fee affixed to it. (2) Each tender shall be in the tender form prescribed in Schedule A below and the tenderer shall state in the tender his full name and address and his father's name (or husband's name if the tenderer is a woman) and full address, with post office and telegraph office. (3) The tenderer shall also state in the tender the maximum outright price or the monopoly fee per rupee of royalty, as the case may be, which is (sic) prepared to pay for each coupe, or mahal, and shall also make a declaration as follows:- "I agree that I will not withdraw the tender offered by me during the time that will be required for intimation of accep­tance of the tender for coupe/mahal being given to me; nor will I withdraw it after­wards, should my tender be accepted. If I withdraw the tender, then I am liable to pay the whole sum of the tender or such amount on account of deficiency as in the opinion of the Conservator of Forests, Assam may be considered neces­sary to make good the whole of the loss and damages that may be suffered by Government in consequence thereof, and I shall pay the same, and if I fail to pay it, then it will be recovered from me as arrear of land revenue." (4) The tender shall be accompanied with the following documents, namely- (1) A copy of the treasury challan or a bank draft evidencing deposit of the pre­scribed earnest money. (ii) An up-to-date income tax clear­ance certificate. (iii) & (iv) are not material for our pur­pose. (ii) An up-to-date income tax clear­ance certificate. (iii) & (iv) are not material for our pur­pose. (v) Documents evidencing financial soundness of the tenderer; Provided that such documentary evi­dence shall not be necessary in case of a tenderer who has been registered under any rule prescribed by the State Govern­ment for registration of forest contrac­tors, but in such case he shall furnish the particulars of his registration." Rule 7: "Any other conditions not In­consistent with the rules:- The Autho­rity calling for tender may call for any other particulars from the intending ten­derer with a view to identifying the ten­derer or to eliciting information about his financial soundness." Rule 8: "Procedure for dealing with the tenders:- (1) After the scrutiny of the tenders, the orders for acceptance of any tender shall be passed by the respec­tive competent authorities whose compe­tency shall be according to the delegation of financial powers under the Assam Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1960. (2) Where, according to the limit of financial power under the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1960, the officer receiving the tenders is not competent to pass order of acceptance of tender, he shall forward the tender papers with his comments to his next higher authority for necessary action." Rule 9: "Appeal and review:- (1) An appeal shall lie. within 15 days from the date of issue of the order or acceptance of tender as follows:- (a) against the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer,- to the Con­servator whose order in appeal shall be final. (b) against the order passed by the Conservator.- to the Governor of Assam, whose order in appeal shall be final. (2) A petition shall lie to the Governor for review of his original order within 15 days from the date of issue of such order but no petition for review of appellate order of Governor shall lie. (3) x x x x". Rule 10: "No obligation to accept high­est or any tender:- There shall be no obligation on the part of the competent authority to accept the highest or any tender or to assign any reason for rejecting any tender." The above are the material provisions which need consideration in deciding the present controversy between the parties. 3. It is clear that settlement is to be regulated by the above Rules which it Is not disputed are statutory. 3. It is clear that settlement is to be regulated by the above Rules which it Is not disputed are statutory. Under Rule 6(4), it is necessary that the tender shall be accompanied with certain documents mentioned therein. Neither the peti­tioner nor the respondent No. 5 submit­ted any documents evidencing their finan­cial soundness as required under Rule 6(4) (v). The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted an affidavit testifying to his financial condition before the Minis­ter. Revenue and Forest, on 13th Novem­ber 1969, on which date the impugned order of settlement was made in favour of the respondent No. 5. It appears that neither in the order granting the settle­ment nor in the order rejecting the re­view application any question was raised about the defects in the tender on account of non-compliance with Rule 6(4) (v). At any rate, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are on the same boat on this score. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent No. 5 was the sitting lessee, but he has not submitted any certi­ficate of registration as forest contractor as required under the proviso to Rule 6(4) (v). 4. The main question, which Is can­vassed before us, is whether the Governor is entitled to settle the mahal hi favour of respondent No. 5, not on his tender, but accepting the price mention­ed in the tender of the petitioner which is the highest price offered for the mahal, 5. When Rules are framed for settle­ment of these mahals, it is necessary that the settling authority acts in conformity with those Rules and the procedure laid down therein. The scheme and the intention disclosed in the elaborate rules noticed above provide for a wide publi­city in the official gazette giving sufficient time for submission of tenders which should be in the prescribed form. The tenders again cannot be entertained be­yond the hour fixed for the purpose, have to be opened then and there in the pre­sence of the public unless for special rea­sons the officer notifies otherwise in the office notice board. There is a gradation of officers for various tenders according to the price tendered. The settling authorities are not bound to accept the highest tender, nor any tender; nor to assign any reason for rejecting any ten­der. There is a gradation of officers for various tenders according to the price tendered. The settling authorities are not bound to accept the highest tender, nor any tender; nor to assign any reason for rejecting any ten­der. There is a right of one appeal only against the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Conservator and against that passed by the Conservator to the Governor. A petition for review of the Governor's original order is also pro­vided for, but no petition for review of the appellate order of the Governor shall lie. The tenders as well as the appeal and review application have got to be affixed with requisite court-fee. The ten­ders, therefore, under the Rules, have got to contain the necessary material in­formations accompanied with documents which the settling authority is required to scrutinise to find out the most suitable tenderer. It is clear that whichever is the settling authority, it is required to act in accordance with the procedure laid down under these Rules. What will be the legal effect in case any defect is noticed, while acting within these Rules, need not be considered in this case. What­ever that may be, one thing is absolutely clear that the settling authority has to find out the most suitable tenderer from all points of view in accordance with its honest and best judgment. It is in a sense unfettered in this domain and in absence of mala fides, this Court will not interfere with its discretion. That, how­ever, should make the position of the settling authority more responsible and difficult as it must not do anything which is not contemplated under these Rules. 6. The settling authority under Rule 10, no doubt, (a) is not bound to accept the highest tender; (b) may or may not accept any tender. There is, however, no tertium quid a third course open to it. To borrow an ancient adage, the settling authority wants to draw from A's well with B's rope. The settling authority cannot substitute a new tender for the tender which is before it. In other words, the Rules do not countenance direct or indirect negotiation or dialogue between the settling authority and any of the tenderers on any account after the submission of the tender. The tender has to be accepted as it is. The settling authority cannot substitute a new tender for the tender which is before it. In other words, the Rules do not countenance direct or indirect negotiation or dialogue between the settling authority and any of the tenderers on any account after the submission of the tender. The tender has to be accepted as it is. The tender must contain a definite price which has to be either accepted or rejected- about which he has to give a declaration under Rule 6(3). Otherwise, it would defeat the very object and purpose underlying these Rules and a settlement in disregard of this salutary principle envisaged in the Rules is invalid in the eye of law. 7. It is manifest in this case that the settling authority, while granting the mahal to the respondent No. 5, acted on a non-existent tender which is accepted beyond the prescribed time. This is not permissible under the Rules. The object of inviting sealed tenders is to keep the price offered by various tenders secret and the method adopted by the settling authority in allowing one of the tenderers to raise the price in the manner done would run counter to the procedure laid down in these Rules besides giving rise to various speculations, rightly ore wrong­ly, about the motive of the settling autho­rity. The scheme of these Rules provid­ing for secrecy, as noticed above, and other requirements to be complied with, both by the tenderers as well as by the settling authorities, clearly go to show that acceptance of a tender after allow­ing the tenderer, to raise his price is not contemplated under these Rules. In this connection, we feel tempted to quote the following passage from a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 592 , Guruswamy v. State of Mysore wherein the unanimous Court, dealing with sale of liquor licences, observed as follows: "The procedure of tender was not open here because there was no notification and the furtive method adopted of settling a matter of this moment behind the backs of those interested and anxious to com­pete is unjustified. Apart from all else, that in itself would in this case have re­sulted in a loss to the State ..................But deeper considerations are also at stake, namely, the elimination of favouri­tism and nepotism and corruption; not that we suggest that that occurred here, but to permit what has occurred in this case would leave the door wide open to the very evils which the legislature in its wisdom has endeavoured to avoid." While quoting the above, we must not be understood to mean that we have any suspicion in this case in our mind of any. malpractice on the part of the settling) authority. 8. In the result, the petition Is allowed. The order of settlement in favour of the respondent No. 5 is set aside. Rule Nisi is made absolute. We make no order as to costs. D. M. SEN. J.: 9. I agree. Petition allowed.