AK Patnaik, J.— This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.12.97 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition numbered as Civil Rule No. 4835 of 1997. 2. The facts briefly are that an auction for the sale of some sal fire-wood was held by the Forest Range Officer, Bondapara Range on 10.12.95,11.12.95 and 21.12.95 and the writ petitioners amongst others participated in the said auction. The petitioner No. 1 s bid of Rs. 1,0057 for 20 cu m of sal fire-wood in respect of Nampathar RF was found to be highest in the said auction. Similarly, the bids off erred by other petitioners in respect of different lots were also found to be highest. Thereafter, the Forest Range Officer of Bondapara Range, addressed a latter dated 13.2.96 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division informing him that as per his instruction he had conducted the auction of sal fire-wood against sale notice dated 10.12.95. When no order; was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer allowing the petitioners to lift the sal fire-wood in respect of which their bids were highest, the petitioners moved this Court in the aforesaid civil rule for appropriate relief and by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge directed the respondents in the said civil rule to realize the bid-money and release the fire-wood in question in favour of the petitioners after making enquiry. The respondents in the said civil rule, have filed the present writ appeal against the said judgment and order dated 5.12.97 of the learned Single Judge. 3. Mr. BP Bora, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Assam, appearing for the writ appellants, submitted that although the sal fire-wood in question were cut and auctioned prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulapad vs. Union of India & others, (1997) 2 SCC 267 . By the said judgment the Supreme Court gave an expanded meaning to the expressions 'forest' and 'forest land' in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and thereafter, inter alia, directed that prior approval of the Central Govt was required for any non-forest activity within the area of any 'forest' and that all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Govt, must cease forthwith. In the said judgment and order, the Supreme Court further directed that there would be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or waterways. According to Mr. BP Bora, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Assam, appearing for the appellants, the ban imposed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment will also apply to sal fire-wood sold by public auction to the petitioners and therefore the authorities cannot release the sal fire wood in question in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Bora further submitted that in any case, under Rules 22 and 24 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, (for short, the Rules, 1977), it was only the Divisional Forest Officer or any other officer deputed by him not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests who could hold an auction for sale of a forest produce of the value not exceeding Rs. 1,000. But in the instant case, the auction sale of sal fire-wood was conducted by the Forest Range Officer who was not authorised under the Rules, 1977 to conduct the auction, and in some of the cases the value of the auction sale exceeded Rs.1,000. Mr. Bora submitted that considering the fact that the auction sale conducted by Forest Range Officer was in violation of the express provisions of Rules 22 and 24 of the Rules, 1977, no direction as such can be given by the Court to release the sal fire wood in question said to be purchased by the petitioners in the auction sale. 4. Mrs B. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners on the other hand submitted that the letter dated 13.2.96 of the Forest Range Officer to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, a copy of the same has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure C, would show that the auction sale of the sal fire-wood hi question was conducted by the Forest Range .Officer, Bondapara as per instructions of the Divisional Forest Officer and therefore the FRO was duly authorised by the Divisional Forest Officer to conduct the auction sale. She further submitted that in other similar cases where auction sale was conducted but the fire-wood was not released in favour of the highest bidder, directions were given by this Court in the order dated 26.5.97 in Civil Rule No. 2234 of 1997 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division to dispose of the representation of the highest bidder and according to information received by the petitioner, pursuant to the said direction of the Court, some fire wood were released in favour of the highest bidder by the concerned authorities. She vehemently argued that in case the petitioners are not allowed to take delivery of the sal fire wood for which they were the highest bidders, their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution against discrimination will be violated. Finally, Mrs Devi contended that the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & others (supra), relied on by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Assam, and in particular the orders passed therein do not apply to the sal fire wood in question which had been cut before the said judgment was delivered and the movement of which is confined within the North-Eastern States. 5. On a reading of the said judgment of the Supreme Court and the orders passed in case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & others (supra), we are not quite sure whether the orders passed therein prohibited the movement of any cut trees within the North Eastern States. But we find on a reading of the provisions of Rules 22 and 24 of the Rules, 1977 that it was only the Divisional Forest Officer or any officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Divisional Forest Officer who could conduct an auction sale of a forest produce of the value not exceeding Rs. 1,000 In the instant case, admittedly, the auction sale had not been conducted either by the Divisional Forest Officer or any officer of the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests. It appears however that the Forest Range Officer, Bondapara conducted the auction sale and the case of the petitioners is that the Forest Range Officer conducted the auction sale as per instruction of the Divisional Forest Officer. It appears however that the Forest Range Officer, Bondapara conducted the auction sale and the case of the petitioners is that the Forest Range Officer conducted the auction sale as per instruction of the Divisional Forest Officer. But under Rule 24 of the Rules 1977, the Forest Range Officer, Bondapara Range could not be authorised by the Divisional Forest Officer to conduct the auction sale as he was not of the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests or above. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the auction sale of the sal fire-wood conducted by the Forest Range Officer, Bondapara on 10.12.95 in favour of the petitioners was contrary to the express provisions of Rules, 22 and 24 of the Rules, 1977. 6. Once the Court holds that the auction sale was contrary to law, the Court cannot possibly direct the authorities to release the sal fire-wood in favour of a party who has purchased the sal fire-wood in such auction sale held contrary to law because the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue Mandamus and other directions can only be exercised in accordance with the law and no Mandamus or direction can as such be given contrary to the provisions of law. It is also the settled position of law that even where some persons have been benefited by the illegal act of the authorities, that cannot be ground for the Court to direct the authorities to commit another illegal act and confer similar benefit to another person and the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution are not applicable in such cases. However, it is for the authorities to consider any representation that may be filed by the writ petitioners for releasing the sal fire­wood in question in view of the fact that the said sal fire-wood have already been cut and are lying with the authorities for about 3 years. 7. However, it is for the authorities to consider any representation that may be filed by the writ petitioners for releasing the sal fire­wood in question in view of the fact that the said sal fire-wood have already been cut and are lying with the authorities for about 3 years. 7. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.97 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 4835 of 1997 is set aside and this writ appeal is allowed with a direction that the writ petitioners will submit their representations before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division for release of their respective sal-fire wood and the Divisional Forest Officer will consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order as well as the representations. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.