Judgement PATHAK, J.:- The petitioner submitted a tender for settlement of No.S/25 Tarabari R.F. Coupe No.20 of 1970-71 under Singra Range in pursuance of a sale notice dated 20-10-1970 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, South Kamrup Division, Gauhati. He offered a sum of Rs.13,175/-. Some other tenderers including Respondent No.5 also submitted tenders for settlement of the said coupe. Respondent No.5 offered Rupees 18,888/-, which was the highest offer. The Conservator of Forests, by his order dated 19-2-1971, settled the coupe in question with Respondent No.5 at his tendered amount of Rs.18,888/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Governor of Assam against the said settlement made by the Conservator of Forests on several grounds. The Governor of Assam by order dated 4-6-1971 rejected the appeal and upheld the settlement made by the Conservator of Forests in favour of Respondent No.5. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the said order of settlement passed by the Conservator of Forests and affirmed by the Governor of Assam, on appeal. 2. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the tender submitted by Respondent No.5 was not a valid tender in the eye of law and therefore the settlement made in favour of Respondent No.5 by the authority concerned was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submits that the settlement made in favour of Respondent No.5 by the authority concerned being in clear violation of the provisions of the settlement rules, the authority concerned committed manifest error of law in settling the coupe with Respondent No.5 and therefore the impugned order of settlement is liable to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his above submissions contends that the Respondent No.5 failed to enclose a caste certificate with the tender as required under the settlement rules in order to support his claim that he belonged to a preferential class. It is submitted that the settlement rules regarding tender having been not complied with, there was no valid tender and the authority ought to have refused to accept the tender of Respondent No.5. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to Rule 6(4)(iv) of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967 which rules admittedly govern the case before us. Rule 6(4) may be set out. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to Rule 6(4)(iv) of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967 which rules admittedly govern the case before us. Rule 6(4) may be set out. "6(4) The tender shall be accompanied with the following documents, namely,- (i) 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) If a tender is submitted on be-half of a Co-operative Society, or a Firm or a Joint Stock Company, then in addition to the requirements of (I) and (II) above,- the original or certified copy of the registration certificate of the society or the firm or the company given by the respective Registrar in Assam, and the copy of the resolution authorising the person who signs the tender to manage the business of such society firm or company on its behalf, and to undertake the liabilities as a tenderer on behalf of the society, firm and company and information regarding authorised, subscribed and paid-up capital of the concern. (iv) If the tender is submitted by a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes, then in addition to the requirements of (i) to (iii) above, the original or certified copy of the certificate in support of the claim to belong to such community from the Deputy Commissioner of the District or the sub-divisional Officer of the Subdivision within whose territorial jurisdiction the tenderer permanently resides. (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." In this connection Rule 7 may also be read:- "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." 4. From the original tender filed by Arun Kumar Das, Respondent No.5 in the case, it is found that in his tender he stated that Backward community certificate was filed already. From the original tender filed by Arun Kumar Das, Respondent No.5 in the case, it is found that in his tender he stated that Backward community certificate was filed already. He also stated that he placed Bank Draft No.C/D 199280/71/99 dated 18-1-71 of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank, as evidence of earnest money deposited. The other documents necessary under the Rules were also filed. It is not disputed that Respondent No.5 deposited the earnest money as required by Rule 5(1) and (2). It is also not disputed that Arun Kumar Das, Respondent No.5 belongs to other backward class, his sub-caste being "Kumar". 5. On consideration of the Rules and the scheme thereof, it is found that the Legislature under Rules 5 and 11 has provided for some concession regarding earnest money and the amount on which the coupe or mahal may be settled in the cases of tenderers belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the backward classes recognised by the State Government. This provision for concession is no doubt in the spirit of the directive principles contained in the Constitution itself. The salutory purpose of Rules 5 and 11 may not be allowed to be frustrated by interpreting Rule 6(4)(iv) of the Rules in a rigid and pedantic way. The purpose of Rule 6(4)(iv) is to find whether a tenderer, who claims himself to belong to any of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward classes really belongs to any of these classes. In the instant case it is not disputed that Respondent No.5 belongs to a backward class recognised by the State Government. Moreover in the tender itself Respondent No.5 stated that the backward community certificate had already been filed and along with the tender we find a certified copy of his certificate issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector. Palasbari Circle, testifying that Respondent No.5 Arun Kumar Das, son of Shri Narayan Kumar Das belongs to other backward class, his sub caste being kumar. Of course, Rule 6(4)(iv) requires that such a certificate should be either from the Deputy Commissioner of the District or the Sub-divisional Officer of the Sub-division within whose territorial jurisdiction the tenderer permanently resides. Any way, when Respondent No.5 stated in his tender itself that he had already filed a backward community certificate and he also produced in fact a true copy of such certificate issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Palasbari Circle. Any way, when Respondent No.5 stated in his tender itself that he had already filed a backward community certificate and he also produced in fact a true copy of such certificate issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Palasbari Circle. P.O. Palasbari, and Respondent No.5 is found to be a resident of Palasbari itself, are inclined to hold that there is substantial compliance with Rule 6(4)(iv) of the said Rules in the instant case. We also find from the original tender filed by Rohit Chandra Das (Mali) that he filed along with the tender a certificate showing that he belonged to the scheduled caste and that certificate is also found to be issued by the President. All Assam Scheduled Caste Association, Gauhati, District Branch. This certificate also does not appear to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divisional Officer. 6. On consideration of the materials on record and the relevant rules, we are satisfied that the Governor of Assam by holding that the tender of Respondent No.5 was quite regular, did not commit any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 7. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rules of procedure are laid down for being obeyed and not for being violated and if the Rules of procedure are not obeyed, then justice will suffer. 7. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rules of procedure are laid down for being obeyed and not for being violated and if the Rules of procedure are not obeyed, then justice will suffer. In this connection the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Monghyr v. Keshab Prasad Goenka, AIR 1962 SC 1694 at p.1701 may be considered:- "The question whether any requirement is mandatory or directory has to be decided not merely on the basis of any specific provisions which, for instance, sets out the consequences of the omission to observe the requirement, but on the purpose for which the requirement has been enacted, particularly in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the general scheme thereof." In Raza Buland Sugar Co, Ltd. v Tne Municipal Board, Rampur ( AIR 1965 SC 895 ) the majority of the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory inasmuch as it uses the word "shall" or is merely directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the provision, have all to be .taken into account in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory." 8. Considering the scheme of the Rules, the purpose of Rule 6(4)(iv) and the other relevant considerations as observed by the Supreme Count in this regard, we are constrained to hold Rule 6(4)(iv) to be directory. 9. In the result we find that this petition has no substance and it is rejected. The Rule is discharged. We make no order as to cost. The stay order is vacated. 10. D. M. SEN, J.:- I agree. Rule discharged.