JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. The Appellant in the instant appeal, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 5255/2005 allowing the writ petition filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 herein without hearing the Appellant, who is a necessary party in the case. 2. On an application filed by the Appellant praying for granting leave for preferring appeal, this Court granted him leave vide order dated 19.12.05 and therefore the Appellant before us. 3. We have heard Mr. B.C. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.N. Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Inspite of service of notice upon Respondent No. 1/writ Petitioner, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, when the matter was called on for hearing. 4. The factual background of the case in brief is that pursuant to sale notice dated 6.6.05 and 1.7.05 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division, Karimganj for settling Longai River Sand Mahal No. IV for a period of 2 years, that is, from 28.6.05 to 27.6.07. The Appellant submitted tender for settlement of the said and Mahal, the tender process was carried out after observing all formalities as provided under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 as amended (Rules 1977 to be referred to hereinafter). The tender was opened on 15.7.05 by the Tender Committee. Altogether, there were 6 (six) numbers of tender and amongst them the Appellant was the highest valid bidder as per the comparative statement dated 30.7.05 prepared by the Respondent No. 5. 5. The writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 5255/05 before this Court, although he was not a tenderer in the said tender process, without arraying the Appellant as party Respondent in the case, wherein the Petitioner prayed inter alia, for setting aside and quashing the Sale Notice dated 6.6.05 and 1.7.05 alleging on the ground, that the same were published contrary to the provision of Rule 4 of the Rules 1977. 6. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, State of Assam, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, allowed the writ petition by setting aside and quashing the aforesaid Sale Notice dated 6.6.2005 and 1.7.2005 respectively and directed that the matter shall go back to the Respondents for publication of Sale Notice in due compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules 1977. It was also made clear that the Respondents shall take immediate steps for taking necessary follow up action for the interest of revenue of the State. 7. The aforesaid order was passed by the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the publication of the Sale Notice in the news paper was contrary to the provision of Rule 4 of the Rules 1977, inasmuch as, as per Rule 4 of Rules 1977, Sale Notice required to be published giving at least one month time for submission of tender. Admittedly it was not done in the instant case. 8. For better appreciation, Rule 4 of Rules 1977 is quoted hereunder: 4. Notice for tender: Brief advertisement inviting tender (Tender Notice) for sale of Mahal/Timber lots containing the names of the Mahals/lots, Areas of the Mahal/quantity of timber, period of the lease/settlement which shall not exceeds two years alongwith the date, time and venue for receipt of tender, shall be published in the "Local daily news papers" for at least consecutive two days by the Divisional Forest Officer at least one month prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender stating the details of the Mahals/lots and other terms and conditions shall be available in the sale notice, which can be procured from the offices of the Divisional Forest Officer during office hours of any working day on payment of Rs. 50.00 (Rupees fifty) per copy of the sale notice. Provided that for resale of any Mahal or timber lot, publication of short sale notice at least fifteen days before the last date of receipt of the tender shall be made which may for may not be published in he news papers. 9. The crucial point for determination in the case is, whether the provision provided in Rule 4 of Rules 1977 is directory or mandatory. 10. Mr. B.C. Das, Sr. 9. The crucial point for determination in the case is, whether the provision provided in Rule 4 of Rules 1977 is directory or mandatory. 10. Mr. B.C. Das, Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that there is no illegalities or irregularities in the Sale Notice as has been projected by the writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1. It was further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1) being not tenderer in the tender process, has no locus standi to challenge the said notices dated 6.6.2005 and 1.7.2005. 11. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance to the decisions mentioned hereunder: 1. AIR 1965 SC 895 (Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. The Municipal Board, Rampur) 2. AIR 1972 Gua 19 (Bipin Chandra Phukan v. The State of Assam and Ors.) 3. (2006) 1 GLT 46 (Mumtaz Rana Laskar and Ors. v. The State of Assam and Ors.) 12. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, when a statute gives a power and requires the authority to exercise it in public interest, then the person exercising the power must be vigilant and should take it as a duty to discharge the obligation in such manner, that the object of the enactment is carried into effect. Sometimes the Section in a particular statute uses the word 'may' but keeping in view the objective of the Act and the context in which it has been used it should be read as 'shall', otherwise it would frustrate the objects of the particular Section. Similar is the case when the word 'shall' is used in the Section. The question of a particular Section and/or Rule, whether directory or mandatory, has been dealt with by the Apex Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (Supra). The same would be referred in appropriate place. 13. In Bipin Chandra Phukan (supra) this Court in a similar situation, While holding Rule 3 of Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules 1967 as mandatory, observed at Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as follows: 7. Section 33 of the Regulation lays down that use of any forest produce as in the instant case may be made only in accordance with Rules to be made by the State Government in this behalf. Section 33 of the Regulation lays down that use of any forest produce as in the instant case may be made only in accordance with Rules to be made by the State Government in this behalf. Under Section 33, the State Government have made the Rules of 1967. No overriding power of settlement of the coupes or mahals has been retained or reserved in favour of the State Government in any of these Rules. In the circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the settlement of the coupes and mahals covered by the Rules of 1967 may be made in accordance with those Rules only and not in any other manner. This view, in our opinion, is in complete accord with the concept of the Rule of law enshrined in the Constitution. 8. In the instant case therefore the settlement of the forest mahal in question may be made only in accordance with the Rules framed in this regard. Under Rule 3 of the Rules, a notice calling for tender for settlement of a coupe or a mahal shall be published in the Official Gazette not less than 15 days before the last date fixed for submission of tender. Admittedly the second sale notice was not published in the official Gazette. It was stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government that the sale notice was locally circulated and affixed in notice board of some offices. In other words the Respondents' submission is that there was substantial compliance with Rule 3. In view of this submission, the question arises whether Rule 3 is mandatory or directory. Rule 3 is in the following terms: 3. Notice for tender--A notice calling for tender for settlement of a coupe or a mahal shall be published in the Official Gazette not less than 15 days before the last date fixed for submission of tender. The purpose of publication of the notice in the official Gazette is to get it circulated throughout the whole State so that any person interested in the settlement of the coupe or mahal may, if he so chooses file a tender. The wide publication opens and opportunity to persons already interested in such settlement or persons who may be interested for the first time in these days of acute unemployment in the State. The wide publication opens and opportunity to persons already interested in such settlement or persons who may be interested for the first time in these days of acute unemployment in the State. The wide publication is also in the interest of public revenue inasmuch as it will check collusive low bid. The publication in the Official gazette as required under Rule 3 will also check favoritism, nepotism and making settlement unfairly to the detriment of public revenue making a show of observation of the other Rules. 9. In Collector of Monghyr v. Keshab Prasad Goenka, AIR 1962 SC 1694 at p. 1701 the Supreme Court observed: The question whether any requirement is mandatory or directory has to be decided not merely on the basis of any specific provision which, for instance, sets out the consequences of the omission to observe the requirement, but on the purpose for which the requirement has been enacted, particularly in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the general scheme thereof. In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampu, AIR 1965 SC 895 the majority of the Hon'ble Judges in that case observed: The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory inasmuch as, it uses the word "shall" or is merely directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision, is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other consideration which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the provision, have all to be taken into account in arriving at the conclusion whether the particular provision is mandatory or directory. Considering the purpose of Rule 3 and the observation of the Supreme Court regarding the mandatory or directory nature of a particular provision of law, we hold that Rule 3 of the Rules is mandatory. Considering the purpose of Rule 3 and the observation of the Supreme Court regarding the mandatory or directory nature of a particular provision of law, we hold that Rule 3 of the Rules is mandatory. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the order dated 17.9.1971 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer was in contravention of the mandatory Rule 3 and the illegality was considered by the Conservator of Forests and therefore he correctly cancelled the provisional settlement order made by the Divisional Forest Officer, and correctly directed withdrawal of the Mahal from sale and for settlement in accordance with Rules after issuing fresh sale notice. Accordingly the Divisional Forest Officer issued the sale notice dated 4.10.71. 14. In Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra), this Court while interpreting as to when a provision could be held to be an imperative one referred the oft quoted passage of Lord Campbell, which is quoted hereunder: 13. In an oft quoted passage Lord Campbell said: "No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered. 15. The core question involved in Mumtaz Rana Laskar (supra) was, as to whether the procedure prescribed as to the time frame under Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, in the matter of no confidence motion against the President and the Vice President is a mandatory or directory in its nature. 16. After thorough discussion of various provisions of the Panchayat Act and authorities on interpretation of statutes, as well as, referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court came to the finding that procedure prescribed under Section 15(1) of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 is directory, not mandatory. It was further held that a mere procedural irregularity in the matter of making the reference by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat either to President of the Anchalik Panchayat or to the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have no bearing whatsoever upon the resolution passed in the specially convened meeting expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice President, of the Gaon Panchayat as the case may be. That itself would not result in causing any prejudice to the person against whom the motion is carried out. 17. In the case in hand, a bare reading of Rule 4 of Rules 1977 reveals that, advertisement inviting tender for sale of Mahal/timber lots is required to be published giving at least one month time prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender and the said advertisement "shall" be published in the local daily news papers for at least consecutive two days by the Divisional Forest Officer. The purpose of publication of notice in the "Local daily news papers" for "at least consecutive two days", is to make it known to every person interested in the settlement of coupe or mahal so that, he may, if he so choses, submit a tender. The wide publication opens an opportunity to persons already interested in such settlement or persons who may be interested for the first time in these days of acute unemployment in the State. The wide publication is also in the interest of public revenue, inasmuch as, it will check collusive low bid. The publication as required under Rule 4 will also check favoritism, nepotism and making settlement unfairly to the detriment of public revenue making show of observation of other Rules and as held in Bipin Chandra Phukan, the same is mandatory and an order of settlement passed without compliance to Rule 4 will therefore be bad law. Admittedly, that was not done in the instant case and thus mandatory provision under the Rules being not followed, the notice calling for tender was violative of Rule 4 of Rules 1977 and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the Sale Notice dated 6.6.2005 and 1.7.2005. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, Rule 4 of Rules 1977 is held to be mandatory and thus we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such no interference is called for with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 19. In the result, this Court has no hesitation to dismiss the appeal, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.9.2005 passed in WP (C) No. 5255/2005. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 21. Parties are left with no costs. Appeal dismissed