JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This writ petition contains issues which have already been settled by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16578 of 1985 (Jagjit Lal v. Conservator of Forest, Western Circle). This decision was delivered by a Bench of Hon'ble K.N. Singh, J. and Hon'ble A.N. Dikshita, J. on 17th December, 1985. The state respondents in the present writ petition are in effect the same and even otherwise the petition arises from the same district as the judgment referred (SIC) that is Nainital. 2. The issue, in effect, is that the petitioner, who had the highest bid in an auction sale could not complete the contract of felling trees and in the meantime the U.P. Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Corporation) had been incorporated and thus the forest contractor was denied access to the forest area to cut the trees in terms of the contract, hence the writ petition. The petitioner has sought the reliefs in the writ petition in the following terms : (a) writ of mandamus directing the respondents in effect that no let or hindrance be caused so that the petitioner can remove the trees, which stand in the lot against which he had made a bid at the auction, (b) a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant an extension of time to the petitioner for cutting and removing the trees, which stand in the lot against which he had made bid at the auction or a direction to the state respondents to refund the money paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the auction. 3. The petitioner, Raj Pal Singh son of Surjeet Singh is a resident of Village Sakatpura, P.C. Hathkhera, District : Rampur. He is a forest contract-or. In reference to the season 1981-82 he made a bid against forest lot no. 360 in Central Tarai Forest Division for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The auction took place on 5-2-1982 and the petitioners' bid was highest. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,99,742/-, and the balance in reference to the auction is yet to be made. The State Government approved the auction bid on 30th March, 1982 and a work order was formally conveyed to the petitioner. The felling of trees, in accordance with the work order, was to be completed by 30th April, 1982. 1,99,742/-, and the balance in reference to the auction is yet to be made. The State Government approved the auction bid on 30th March, 1982 and a work order was formally conveyed to the petitioner. The felling of trees, in accordance with the work order, was to be completed by 30th April, 1982. But the schedule could not be kept. The petitioner contends that the delay was caused by the State Government itself as the forest season commences from 1st November each year, but the State Government chose to hold the auction, without any valid reason, in November, of the following year and the work order was given to him. It is contended in the petition that as a matter of policy there is a practise in the Forest Department that forest contractor who was not able to sell the trees in the lot allocated to him within the stipulated period, was granted an extension in the normal course by levying an extension fee of one percent. Their quest for extension was sought by the petitioner, along with the other forest contractor for similar contract, but the request was declined by the State Government. The reason was that the State Government has taken a policy decision that no extension would be granted to contractors in those areas where the Forest Corporation has commenced operations. 4. Along with those facts, other issues raised by the petitioner are also almost identical and have been resolved by the judgment of this Court, In re Jagjit Lal v. Conservator of Forest, Western Circle and others (supra), thus, those circumstances are not being repeated in this order. In accordance with the aforesaid judgment this Court is laying down the following conditions by allowing this writ petition and directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to cut and remove the trees on the conditions hereinafter prescribed. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances arising out of the present writ petition and those, which have been settled in the judgment of this Court In re Jagjit Lal v. Conservator of Forest, Western Circle and others (supra) it is declared : (i) The petitioner is not liable to pay any late fee. (ii) The petitioner shall pay extra royalty at 35% of the auction sale money in one instalment by 28th February 1986. (ii) The petitioner shall pay extra royalty at 35% of the auction sale money in one instalment by 28th February 1986. In addition, an extension fee on the original bid money will be payable 63% in all, along with the extra royalty, by 28th February, 1986. (iii) The petitioner shall pay sales Tax, if any, within one month from its demand. (iv) If remarking of the trees is necessary, it shill be done by the respondents by 15th March, 1986 and the petitioner will cut the trees from 16th March, 1986 to 31st May, 1986. Such trees as are cut between 16th March, 1986 to 31st May, 1986, will be permitted to be removed till 30th June, 1986 under the supervision of the L.P. Forest Corporation, and no supervision charges will be charged from the petitioner. (v) The petitioner shall pay security money at 162/3, in cash, for the period 1st March, 1986 to 30th April, 1986. (vi) In addition to the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner shall abide by the other conditions under the Standing Order and Sales Rules if not already covered by the aforesaid stipulations. 6. As this writ petition is being decided with the consent of the parties, there will be no order regarding costs.