A. Raghvir, C.J.- The subject matter in this writ petition is a Sand and Stone Mahal in North Kamrup Division. The Mahal was settled in favour of Jitendra Nath Saikia from October 27, 1986 to August 10. 1987 for Rs. 87.502/-. Due to the exigencies the period was extended for 6 months 11 days. Saikia availed of the extended period. He paid the amounts due by him. The instant writ petition relates to period May 12,1988 to May 11. 1990 of the same Mahal. The facts show tenders for the settlement of the Mahal were invited. Before the last date of submission of tenders i.e. August 18, 1988 the State Government realised that unduly long time is wasted in processing the settlement. Earlier when the instant Mahal was settled from October 27, 1986 to August 10, 1987 the State received only one tender of Jitendra Nath Saikia. No other had responded therefore the authorities felt the revenue was not augmented on that occasion therefore the authorities decided to settle this time by negotiation. Whether the State possesses such power under Rules is the issues in the instant case especially after tenders were called for is the lis in question in the instant case. These facts show the tender procedure was foreclosed. The mahal was settled with Parikshit Das on August 17,1988 having increased the amount (Rs. 99,783) of settlement by 14% from the previous settlement of Rs. 87,502/- J. N. Saikia the writ petitioner asserts on August 18,1988 he was to submit tender. But he was informed the instant Mahal was settled by negotiation on August 17, 1988. He stated that he was to offer Rs. 1,50,000/-.'He complains the State is unable to look after its revenue properly. He inter alia contends his rights are violated. His business plans are frustrated. Therefore he seeks appropriate reliefs from this Court in particular he seeks to quash the settlement entered in favoar of Parikshit Das on August 17,1988. The facts to repeat show tenders were called for. Last date was fixed. A day before the expiry of the last date the State Government settled the Mahal by negotiation. Many issues in this state of record are left to be answered. Many a suspicion is excited. The facts to repeat show tenders were called for. Last date was fixed. A day before the expiry of the last date the State Government settled the Mahal by negotiation. Many issues in this state of record are left to be answered. Many a suspicion is excited. The State Government represented that normally Mahals are settled by tender or by way of auction and stated in all 224 Sand Mihals are settled by tenders and only 12 Mahals by negotiation. These figures exclude the area of Karbi Anglong (East) (Hamren Division). It is averred the instant Sand Mahal is in Udalguri Sub-Division of Darrang District which is now a disturbed area. They recounted that unconscionable delay was experienced in settling Mahals by tender and the delay was acting to the detriment of the State. Therefore .taking the circumstances into consideration the State increased Mahal amount by 14% and arrived at a sum of Rs. 99,783/- and for that sum settled with a Scheduled Caste candidate who is impleaded in the writ petition. These facts are averred to show there was no malafides on the part of the State authorities. Two aspects operated it is argued with the State Government-one with reference to the candidate with whom they negotiated and settled the Mahal. He is a Scheduled Caste candidate. The other ground the area where the Sand Mahal is located in the Udalguri Sub-Division of Darrang District which is disturbed area. Prompted by these two consideration the tender procedure was foreclosed and the settlement by negotiation was adopted Further Saikia, the writ petitioner, it is seen approached the State Government thereupon facts were reviewed and the representation of Saikia on Novenber 22, 1988 was rejected by the State Government. Now we may deal the argument advanced in this case on behalf of the writ petitioner. It is argued that once a Mahal is offered by way of tender it is not open for that Government to Foreclose that procedure and invoke other method under the rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively argued even if it is to be understood such a power vested with the State Government, the Government cannot withdraw it without proper publicity before the last date prescribed. The fact that the last date for submission of the tender was August 18,1988 it is pointed out without due publicity tenders were aborted illegally. The fact that the last date for submission of the tender was August 18,1988 it is pointed out without due publicity tenders were aborted illegally. The counsel argued adoption of such a course is a volte face which is not permitted and construed the act of the State Government as an act of despondency and for that reason is liable to be quashed. The issue arises under the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules^ 1977. Numerous questions of administrative law do arise in the case. The lis in the case however can be decided on a short point which is indicated in a case decided by this Court. In AIR 1983 Gau 50 , Jugal Chandra Chetia vs. State of Assam. In that case paragraph 7 this Court Stated : ' ''It has been rightly contended by Shri D. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate that the power of the Govt. to withdraw the coupe from sale ought-not to be taken away by virtue of this order. We have not taken away the power of withdrawal. The Government in Forest Deptt. or the competent authority to accept tender have the right to withdraw the coupe in question from the sale at any time before issue of final order of acceptance of tender. The tender has not been finally accepted as yet. So, the authorities enumerated in R. 20 can exercise the power to withdraw the coupe, provided there is just, proper and appropriate ground of withdrawal. The authority must, however, communicate the grounds of withdrawal to the petitioner before allowing 'to operate the coupe departmentally'. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that there are just, proper and sufficient grounds. However, we do not express- any opinion in this issue. What we desire to express is that if the Government in Forest Department or the competent authority to accept tender considers that the coupe should be withdrawn they can exercise their power under R. 20 of the Rules, communicate the reasons to the persons likely to be affected by the order and thereafter may give direction to operate the coupe departmentally." In this case we do not wish to review cases nor do we desire to consider the subject from a larger perspective. In the last six years it is shown the Government followed the procedure indicated in this case. In the last six years it is shown the Government followed the procedure indicated in this case. The learned Advocate General argued the tests laid in the case were followed by this Court and tendered the record for scrutiny from the perspective of the ratio laid in the case referred. The conditions laid in the above case : "What we desire to express is that if the Government in Forest Department or the competent authority to accept tender considers that the coupe should be withdrawn they can exercise their power under R. 20 of the Rules, communicate the reasons to the persons likely to be affected by the order and there­after may give direction to operate the coupe departmentally. The test No. 1 is the State can withdraw if on an objective consi­deration if it can be hold the withdrawal of tenders is "just, proper and appropriate." We are satisfied that the Maual is in Udalguri sub­ division of Darrang District and the area is distrubed. There was a lone tenderer in the earlier period ,and the Government is not wrong in recounting the earlier experience, The additional experience that long delay in settling by tender method was resulted in the deteriment of the State revenue is also not irrelevant. Finally the State settled with a Scheduled Caste candidate on increased amount upto 14% cannot be held to be improper. These aspects in a large measure satisfy the test of just, proper and appropriate laid in para 7 of the aforesaid judgment. The question is whether due publicity was given before tender procedure was aborted. The record discloses that on August 17, 1988 the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in a commu­nication to the Conservator of Forest, Chief Conservator of Forests, Parikshit Chandra Das directed appropriate action consistent with the settlement arrived with Parikshit Chandra Das. Before the seettlement was made no publicity was given about the intended withdrawal of the tender procedure. Therefore, the second test prescribed obviously is not complied on the facts of the case The learned Advocate General in an earnest augment represented the action of the State was prompted to argument the revenue of the exchequer. The withdrawal was not hit by any oblique motive. The candidate with whom the Mabal is settled is a Scheduled Caste candi­date. The preference given to such a candidate cannot be construed nepotism. The withdrawal was not hit by any oblique motive. The candidate with whom the Mabal is settled is a Scheduled Caste candi­date. The preference given to such a candidate cannot be construed nepotism. The only aspect perhaps not complied so argued by the learned Advocate General is the test of due publicity prescribed by this Court. Therefore on a consideration of all circumstances it was argued this Court may not interfere. In this case we are concerned with the affairs of the State with reference to the largess of the State. Sand Mahals, Meen Mahals and Stone Mahals are sources and large amounts are collected by the State from the above sources. What the State does and what the State does not do affects numerous individuals in this State as it involves livelihood of many a person in the State. A Division Bench of this Court held therefore all concerned should be made aware if settlement by tender is withdrawn on the interpretation of rules. There is no reason as to why the Government should not strictly comply with such requirement. More so when their case is to have acted as directed by this Court in this past six years as decided in that case. On this ground we have also heard the counsel for Parikshit Chandra Das. We hold the settlement entered on August 17, 1988 cannot be sustained therefore is set aside. But for convenience of settlement we direct Parikshit Chandra Das may be allowed to continue to operate the Mahal till end of August, 1989 so that during the intergnum the Government may settle the Mahal in accordance with law. This period we extend after the judgment with a view to safe guard the resources of the State. We leave for the Government to decide in what manner the instant Mahal is to be settled. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Smti. M. Sarma, J.-I agree.