JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Basically in both the writ petitions, a challenge has been made against settlement of three Mahals namely, Fatasil Stone Mahal No. 1, Fatasil Stone Mahal No. 2 and Fatasil Stone Mahal No. 3 which were kept inoperative for long time in terms of the Supreme Court verdict and subsequently as per the direction of the Apex Court, the Department of Forest of the State Govt. in consultation with the Central Govt. as well as in the light of the' approval' given by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and North Eastern Regional Office vide communication dated 09.03.06 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition No. 4659/2006) took a decision to lift the ban on extracting stone from those Mahals and to settle the same charging Net Present Value (NPV). 3. In seeking relief, the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06 made the following prayer: In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorari shall not be issued setting aside the impugned process of settlement of the Mahals as reflected in the communication dated 9.3.06 (Annexure-1) and/or to settle the Fatasil Stone Mahal No. 3 and Fatasil stone Mahal No. 1 respectively in favour of the Petitioners and on perusal of records and on hearing the parties to the proceeding be further pleased to make the rule nisi absolute and/or pass any such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of the writ petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay/suspend the entire process of settlement of Mahal in question passing appropriate interim order restraining the official Respondents not to issue order of settlement of the said Mahals, during the pendency of the instant writ petition to any one including the private Respondents. 4. Similar prayer was also made in W.P.(C). 4. Similar prayer was also made in W.P.(C). No. 4624/06 which maybe read as under: In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in nature of mandamus and/or Certiorari shall-not be issued setting aside the impugned process of settlement of the Mahals as reflected in the communication dated 9.3.06 (Annexure-A) and/or to settle the Fatasil Stone Mahal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the Petitioners and on perusal of records and on hearing the parties to the proceeding be further pleased to make the rule Nisi absolute and/or pass any such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case. -AND- Pending disposal of the writ petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay/suspend the entire process of settlement of the Mahals in question by passing appropriate interim order restraining the official Respondents not to issue order of settlement of the said Mahals, in favour of the private Respondents or any one and/or pass any like order protecting the interest of the Writ Petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper. 5. In W.P. (C) No. 4659/2006, it is strongly contended that the entire process of selection/allotment/settlement of the Mahals in question was vitiated by arbitrariness, nepotism and favoritism and the same was done with the sole purpose to favour Respondents 10 and 11. 6. It is also contended that though the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06 participated in the settlement of the Mahal in question, their case was not at all considered in terms of the provisions of law laid down in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') and the Assam Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Rules'). 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06 has also complained before this Court that in the instant case the Rules was not adopted by the competent authority instead they primarily and exclusively relied on the Assam Sales of Forest Produce, Coups and Mahals (for short, 1977 Rules') and the same was reflected from the communication made by the Respondent No. 3, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial) to the Respondent No. 1 Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Environment and Forest Department vide communication dated 30.6.2006 (Annexure-11 to the W.P. (C) No. 4659/06). 8. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioners that assuming but not admitting, if the Rules was followed upon by the competent authority, in that case also, there was clear violation of Rules 17 and 31 of the Rules as the procedure prescribed under those Rules was not complied with in that case. Citing an example, it is submitted that Respondent No. 9 offered his bid for settlement to extract 1500 M3 stone per year only vide communication dated 28.6.06 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition No. 4659/06) but the authority granted 3200 M3 of stone per year to him which is reflected from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State-Respondents 1 to 6. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the Central Government being the absolute authority in all those cases to grant final approval, has not yet been granted any such final approval for allotment/settlement of the Mahals with the Respondent Nos. 9 to 11. 9. On the other hand, in the Writ petition No. 4624/06, the Petitioners herein, have submitted that no notice whatsoever was ever issued by the competent authority informing/inviting tender so as to enable the interested persons like the Petitioners to participate in the impugned settlement process. The stand of the Petitioners is that had there been any issuance of such notice/information whatsoever, the Petitioners would have got an opportunity to participate in the entire settlement process and as such due to non issuance of notice, although not provided in the Act or Rules itself, the impugned action is hit by the basic principle of natural justice and thereby the Petitioners, being citizens of India, has been deprived of from getting any opportunity in participating in the process of settlement 10. Countering all the allegations, contentions and submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners, the learned Addl. Advocate General has raised the following three points: (i) Basically there was an 'in principle' approval given by the Central Government in compliance of Section 2 of the Act and final approval as referred to in the communication dated 9.3.06 made by the Govt. of India, noted above, would be accorded only after payment of NPV only after acceptance of settlement. of India, noted above, would be accorded only after payment of NPV only after acceptance of settlement. Though admittedly, there are three Mahals in question, being the subject matter herein, Mahal No. 2, out of those three, has already been finally settled and final approval was also against the said Mahal, granted. But the final approval could not be processed against the Mahals No. 1 and 3 by the Central Government due to the instant Court cases. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Union of India in paragraph-6 that due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4659/06 on 18.9.06, final decision of final approval could not be taken in respect of Mahal Nos. 1 and 3 and final approval will be made forthwith as soon as the interim order is vacated. To bolster up his submission, strong reliance has been placed on two communications/circulars dated 17/18 September, 2003' and 19th/22nd September, 2003 issued by the Asst. Inspector General of Forests to all the Secretaries (Forests) of all States and Union Territories (Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the Govt.'s affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06) wherein it was clearly demonstrated that NPV should be charged in all those cases which had been granted 'in-principle' approval after 30.10.2002 and NPV would be realized before Stage-II (Final) approval in terms of Section 2 of the Act. In the instant case, it is admitted position, according to the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam that so far Mahal No. 2 is concerned, final approval has already been granted and as regards Mahal Nos. 1 and 3, final approval is still awaited and the same shall be done as soon as NPV is realized after the vacation of the interim order passed by this Court. (ii) The entire settlement process was conducted by a High Level Expert Committee constituted with the 4 high mandarins of the Govt. of Assam comprising of (1) Commissioner & Secretary, Environment and Forests Department; (2) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam; (3) Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Assam and (4) Shri A. Swargiary, IFS, Nodal Officer, Office of the PCCF, Assam and the Committee, upon extensive consideration, took the decision judiciously by following the norms and guidelines postulated in the Rules. of Assam comprising of (1) Commissioner & Secretary, Environment and Forests Department; (2) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam; (3) Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Assam and (4) Shri A. Swargiary, IFS, Nodal Officer, Office of the PCCF, Assam and the Committee, upon extensive consideration, took the decision judiciously by following the norms and guidelines postulated in the Rules. It is made clear by the Government that there is no scope for application of 1977 Rules though the officers concerned had referred to the same in their communications. It is ultimately the Government which has to decide the applicability of appropriate law and accordingly the Govt. has fallen back upon the Rules, being the relevant law having applicability in the instant case and accordingly, following the provisions of law laid down in the Rules, the entire process of settlement was proceeded with and eventually Respondents 9, 10 and 11 were selected for such settlement. (iii) So far the violation of Rule 31 of the Rules is concerned, as alleged by the writ Petitioners, it is contended that the said provision is only applicable for grant of mining permit and not at all applicable for mining lease and the same is not at all applicable in the instant case as stated on behalf of the Petitioners. 11. Having carefully considered the rival contentions and submissions made on behalf of the parties and also upon meticulous scanning of the materials available on record, it appears that the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06 were unsuccessful in getting settlement of the Mahal in question. The communication dated 8.6.06 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) manifestly indicates that the Petitioners requested the competent authority to allow them to extract the stone materials from the Mahal in question, as they were intending to run the Mahal by depositing NPV in terms of guideline. 12. Basic grievance of the Petitioners, as projected and as it appears, is non-issuance of notice/tender papers for selection/settlement of the Mahals in question. Nevertheless, the Rules do not provide for any such notice/issuance of tender papers. Rule 17 of the Rules speaks of only preferential right of certain persons for mining lease which reads as under: 17. 12. Basic grievance of the Petitioners, as projected and as it appears, is non-issuance of notice/tender papers for selection/settlement of the Mahals in question. Nevertheless, the Rules do not provide for any such notice/issuance of tender papers. Rule 17 of the Rules speaks of only preferential right of certain persons for mining lease which reads as under: 17. Preferential rights of certain persons for mining lease - (1) Whenever more than one applications are received for grant of mining lease the Director or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest or his authorised agents shall dispose of the applications in order of preference specified below: (a) Applications of Government Department, Government Corporation and Government Companies: (b) Applications of Labour Contract Cooperative Societies: (c) Other applications. (2) Where two or more persons other than those mentioned at Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (1) have applied for a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received first shall have a preferential right for the grant of the lease over others: Provided that where any such applications are received on the same day, the competent authority after taking into consideration the matters specified in Sub-rule (3), may grant the quarry lease to such one of the applicants as he may deem fit. (3) The matter referred to in Sub-rule (2) are the following: (a) Any special knowledge of or experience in mining or quarrying operations possessed by the applicant; (b) The financial resources stability of the applicant: (c) The nature and quality of technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant; (d) The end use of the mineral by the applicant' (e) Such other matters as may be prescribed. 4. The Director or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing and with the previous approval of the State Government, grant a mining lease to an applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. 13. It is admitted position that the Petitioners have also not challenged the constitution of the Expert Committee for such selection as well as the decision making process. 14. The Apex Court in a case of State of Haryana v. Lai Chand and Ors. 13. It is admitted position that the Petitioners have also not challenged the constitution of the Expert Committee for such selection as well as the decision making process. 14. The Apex Court in a case of State of Haryana v. Lai Chand and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1326 and a (1984) 3 SCC 634 relying on a decision of the same Court in a case of Harsankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner reported in AIR 1975 SC 1121 : (1975) 1 SCC 737 , dealing with the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case of contractual matter in paragraph-8 categorically opined that "writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. The person who made a bid for grant of such privilege with a full knowledge of the terms and conditions attaching to the auction could not be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligation arising out of the acceptance of his bid." That is what exactly has happened in the present case. 15. The Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4659/06 admittedly proceeded in the bid process for selection of the Mahal in question by making applications after accepting the entire terms and conditions including the decision of the Expert Committee and they have been found not suitable by the Expert Committee. Now they cannot be permitted to assail such process of selection. 16. So far as the question of final approval of settlement by the Central Government is concerned, as alleged on behalf of the Petitioners, after 'in principle' approval given by the Central Government as indicated above, the next phase is to settle the Mahal with the persons concerned and on payment of NPV only second phase of final approval is to be adhered to. In the instant case, on perusal of the records, it appears that so far Mahal No. 2 is concerned, final approval has already granted by the Union of India on realizing NPV which has been fixed by the Supreme Court in between Rs. 5.80 lakhs and Rs. 9.20 Lakhs per hectre whereas in the instant case the Government of Assam has fixed NPV at Rs. 5.80 Lakhs per hectre and the final approval as regards the Mahal Nos. 5.80 lakhs and Rs. 9.20 Lakhs per hectre whereas in the instant case the Government of Assam has fixed NPV at Rs. 5.80 Lakhs per hectre and the final approval as regards the Mahal Nos. 1 and 3 is awaited and the same could not be done in compliance of the interim order so passed by this Court as already stated above. 17. Section 2 of the Act and last paragraphs of the circular/communication dated 9.3.06 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition No. 4695/06) clearly indicates that after 'in principle' approval, the final approval shall be given by the Central Government and in the instant case final approval of Mahal Nos. 1 and 3 shall be done in second phase immediately after the realization of the NPV. In case of Mahal No. 2, immediately after realization of the NPV, the second phase was completed. 18. Having regard to the above cited case and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the Petitioners on the basis of those contentions and averments made in these writ petitions to grant the relief as prayed for therein as already quoted above. 19. Consequently, these writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and the same shall stand dismissed. Interim order passed earlier shall also stands vacated. Petition dismissed