S N. Phukan, J — This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing the letter dated 2.7.73 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Digboi Division; and also the Certificate No.C.27/ 10645-47 dated 2.7.73 issued by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner also prays for quashing the notice dated 23.3.83 issued under sec­tion 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. 2. In pursuant to a sale notice dated 16.12.70 issued by the Divisional 'Forest Officer, Digboi Division for sale of plywood coupes of Digboi Division for the year 1970-71, the petitioner submitted the tender for settlement of one of the coupes. In the petition it has been stated that while calculating the amount some mistakes were detected and accordingly the amount offered by the petitioner was found to be highly inflated. According to the petitioner after submission of the tender, he informed the Divisional Forest Officer, before the tenders were opened and accepted about the above fact in writing with the request that his tender may be cancelled. In spite of the above position, the Divisional Forest Officer by letter dated 4.2.71 settled the coupe with the peti­tioner. As the petitioner did not pay the first kist and the security money, the coups was notified for resale. Thereafter a proceeding was started for recovery of the difference against petitioner. The amount of difference after resale was Rs. 17,777.77 p. As the petitioner did not pay this amount the present proceeding was started under the provision of Public Demands Recovery Act. Hence, this present petition. 3. We may state that the rule was issued on 7.4.84 and no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and records are not available for our perusal. 4. We have heard Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Miss U.Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate. 5. Admittedly, the proceeding for recovery the of amount was started in view of the provision contained in rule 17 of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahal by Tender System Rules, 1967. According to Mr. Chaliha this present case is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule 676 of 1970 disposed of on 8th October, 1974. 6. We quote rule 17 of the said Rules as follows :- "17. Cancellation and resale for failure to pay security and instalments and to execute agreement. According to Mr. Chaliha this present case is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule 676 of 1970 disposed of on 8th October, 1974. 6. We quote rule 17 of the said Rules as follows :- "17. Cancellation and resale for failure to pay security and instalments and to execute agreement. If the tenderer whose tender has been accepted fails to pay on due date the security men­tioned in R.14 or to pay the instalments mentioned in R.I5, or to execute the agreement mentioned in R.I6, the settlement of the coupe or the mahal shall be liable to be cancelled and the coupe and the mahal may be resettled for the remaining part of the settlement period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to Government and if the proceeds on re-settlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from him; and further, the earnest money and the security money if already deposited, shall be liable to be forfeited." 7. In the petition it has been specifically stated that no notice was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the settlement before the notice for resale of the coupe was issued. As this statement has been made in para 3 of the petition which is supported by an affidavit and no counter has been filed, we have to accept it. 8. Rule 17 inter alia provides that if a tenderer fails to pay on due date the security under rule 14 or to pay the instalments under rule 15 or to execute the agreement under rule 16, the settl­ement shall be liable to be cancelled and the coupe or mahal may be resettled at the risk of such tenderer. This Court in above Civil Rule laid down that, it is implicit that before proceeding further under rule 17 there must be an order of cancellation of the settlement by the competent authority and also before passing the order of cancellation a notice should be given to the settlement holders so that the principle of natural justice should be made. 9. We have considered the submissions at the r Bar and also the ratio Jaid down in the above Civil Rule and we do not find any scope for taking a different view. 9. We have considered the submissions at the r Bar and also the ratio Jaid down in the above Civil Rule and we do not find any scope for taking a different view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for realisation of the amount of difference from the original tenderer under above rule 17, the settlement has to Be cancelled first and that too, after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. In the case in hand no order was passed cancelling the settlement dated 4.2.71. We, therefore hold that the subsequent proceeding for realisation of the amount is not tenable in law. Hence the recovery proceeding for Rs. 17, 777.77 p. is liable to be quashed. 10. Miss Baruah has drawn our attention to rule 6 of the Settlement Rules and has urged that the petitioner was debarred from withdrawing the tender after it was submitted. We need not enter into this aspect of the matter as we have found the impugned proceeding for recovery of the amount under the Public Demands Recovery Act is not in accordance with law as stated above. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed and rule is made absolute. The impugned proceeding started under the provision of the Public Demands Recovery Act is quashed. No costs.