JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned senior counsel for the appellant. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur West Division invited tenders from intending bidders for settlement of Dhirai Sand and Gravel Mahal for the years 2005-07 through sale notice dated 21-12-2005. The appellant, in response to the said sale notice, offered his bid of Rs. 3,65,505. That, another tenderer by name one Nani Paul of Kacharigaon, Tezpur also submitted his tender by duly complying with all the formalities. The Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur, according to the writ appellant, having found both the tenders as valid forwarded the same through the Conservator of Forests, Tezpur Circle, Tezpur to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Guwahati, the respondent No. 2 in this appeal, with his own recommendation to settle the mahal in favour of the writ appellant. 3. The case set up by the writ appellant is that the 2nd respondent had chosen to reject the offer of the writ appellant as well as the tender submitted by said Nani Paul without affording any opportunity whatsoever. The case set up by the appellant is that the 2nd respondent without accepting either of the tenders directed the authorities to re-publish the sale notice inviting fresh tenders for the mahal in question. 4. The case set up by the writ appellant is that the 2nd respondent Chief Conservator of Forests is bound to accept the highest bid offered by him and the decision to publish a fresh sale notification ignoring the legitimate right of the appellant for settlement on the basis of the highest offer is contrary to the Rules. 5. It is under those circumstances the appellant/writ petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate directions as against the respondents to accept the offer made by him. The learned Single Judge even at the stage of admission, no doubt with a very short order, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: - Heard Mr. T.C. Khetry, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Single Judge even at the stage of admission, no doubt with a very short order, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner: - Heard Mr. T.C. Khetry, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashment of Short Sale Notice dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) inviting fresh settlement of Dhirai Sand and Gravel Mahal (for short, 'Mahal') for the period of 2005-07 on the sole ground that though the petitioner being the highest bidder, was earlier selected for settlement with the said Mahal for the period 2005-07, the impugned sale notice has been issued without settling the Mahal in question with him. On pointed query, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any documents whatsoever to show that the Mahal was ever settled with him for 2005-07. That being so, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Hence this writ appeal. 6. Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant writ petitioner strenuously contended before us that the 2nd respondent committed an incurable infirmity in rejecting not only the offer of the appellant but also of another bidder by name Nani Paul. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel is that the highest bid offered by the appellant ought to have been accepted by the Chief Conservator of Forests. 7. During the course of hearing of this appeal we have also asked the same question as the one posed by the learned Single Judge and required the learned. Senior counsel to answer as to whether there is any record or material made available for the perusal of the court that the mahal as such was settled in his favour as contended by him. There is no such record. Obviously there cannot be any record because even according to the appellant the mahal was not settled in his favour in accordance with law. The appellant appears to be little confused as regards the distinction between noting the offer of the appellant by one of the intermediary authorities as highest and the settlement of the mahal. Obviously there cannot be any record because even according to the appellant the mahal was not settled in his favour in accordance with law. The appellant appears to be little confused as regards the distinction between noting the offer of the appellant by one of the intermediary authorities as highest and the settlement of the mahal. The respondent No. 3 at the most may have recommended to the competent authority with his own observation to accept the offer made by the writ appellant. Such recommendation by no stretch of imagination could be equated to that of settlement of the mahal in favour of the appellant. The entire matter was under consideration of the 2nd respondent Chief Conservator of Forests, who is the competent authority to decide whether to accept or reject even the highest bid. It is the 2nd respondent alone who is competent under the Rules to settle the matter. 8. Rule 8 of Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 (for short "the Rules") prescribes the procedure for dealing with tenders. It says that after scrutiny of the tenders the order for acceptance of any tender shall be passed by the respective competent authority whose competency shall be according to the delegation of financial powers under the Assam Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1960. There is no dispute whatsoever that the Chief Conservator of Forests is the competent authority to settle the mahal so far as the present case is concerned. Rule 9 of the Rules provides for appeal and review with which we are not concerned, though the learned senior counsel referred to this rule also. Rule 9 provides for an appeal against the acceptance of tender by the Divisional Forest Officer, to the Conservator whose order in the appeal shall be final that, as against the order of acceptance of tender by the Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests, appeal lies to the Governor. 9. Rule 10 of the Rules, which is relevant for our present purpose, reads as under: - 10. No obligation to accept the highest or any tender. - The highest tender will generally be accepted but it shall not be obligatory on the part of the setting authority to accept the highest or any tender. 10. 9. Rule 10 of the Rules, which is relevant for our present purpose, reads as under: - 10. No obligation to accept the highest or any tender. - The highest tender will generally be accepted but it shall not be obligatory on the part of the setting authority to accept the highest or any tender. 10. That, a bare reading of Rule 10 makes it abundantly clear that the settling authority is not under any legal obligation to accept the highest tender and even the highest tender may be rejected for variety of reasons. Here is a case where the competent authority refused to accept the highest tender and accordingly directed a fresh sale notice to be issued calling for tenders from the intending bidders. It is not as if the authority having rejected the highest tender accepted another bid which is comparatively a lower one. The situation, perhaps, may have been totally different if the authority accepted any such offer lower than of the highest one. 11. Learned senior counsel, however, relying upon Rule 17 of the Rules, contended that the sale of the coupe or mahal is liable to be cancelled and resold only in the case where the tenderer fails to pay the security or to pay the installment on due dates mentioned in Rule 5 or to execute agreement mentioned in Rule 16 and on no other ground. Reliance on Rule 17 is completely misplaced. Rule 17 speaks about a situation where a tender has been accepted and where there is a failure on the part of the tenderer after its acceptance to pay the security or to pay the installments in terms of the Rules and the Agreements. There has been no acceptance of the tender of the appellant. There is no agreement entered into between the parties. There is no settlement of any mahal as such in favour of the appellant. 12. The learned senior counsel also relied upon Rule 20 of the Rules, which confers right to withdrawal of any coupe or mahal from sale at any time by the competent authority. Rule 20 says that the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, shall have full right to withdraw any coupe or mahal from sale at any time before issue of final order of acceptance of tender. Rule 20 says that the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, shall have full right to withdraw any coupe or mahal from sale at any time before issue of final order of acceptance of tender. In this case there has been no acceptance of tender of either of the appellant or any other bidder. Therefore, Rule 20 has no application to the fact situation of the case. 13. In Shri Bipin Chandra Phukan v. State of Assam and Ors. (1983) 1 GLR 61 while construing Rule 26 of the Rules referred to hereinabove, this Court observed that the Government in Forest Department and the authority competent to accept the tender shall have the right to withdraw any coupe or mahal from sale as provided in Rule 20. The court took the view that the fair administrative procedure demands that a notice must be issued in case of revocation/suspension of lease or settlement already granted. This Court further held that the same principle would be applied to initial leases or settlements as well. We fail to appreciate as to how the said judgment is applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand and helps the case set up by the appellant. It is not a case of settlement of any mahal as such in favour of the appellant. Had it been settled in favour of the appellant the same would not have been revoked or suspended by any of the authorities without putting the appellant on notice. 14. In Jugal Chandra Chetia v. State of Assam and Ors. a Division Bench of the Apex Court while construing the very Rule 20 referred to hereinabove held that the order directing management and control of the coupe departmentally cannot be sustained as the Government could not have exercised the power before withdrawal of the coupe from sale as required under Rule 20 of the Rules. It is further held that the Government in Forest Department or the competent authority, as the case may be, have the right to withdraw the coupe from sale at any time before issue of final order of acceptance of the tender. The law has been succinctly stated by the Division Bench - "The tender has not been finally accepted as yet. The law has been succinctly stated by the Division Bench - "The tender has not been finally accepted as yet. So, the authorities enumerated in Rule 20 can exercise the power to withdraw the coupe, provided there is just, proper and appropriate ground of withdrawal." 15. That, at any rate it is not necessary to further debate on the issue since the case on hand is not a case of withdrawal of any coupe or mahal from sale. According to the appellant, the authorities have decided to issue a fresh sale notification inviting tender from the intending bidders since the offers received were not acceptable to the competent authority. The case on hand is a simple one where the competent authority has decided not to accept any of the bids/offers submitted by the appellant as well as another individual by name Nani Paul. In such view, there is no other option left to the authorities except to issue a fresh sale notification. The decision to put the mahal to sale remains unaltered. There is no change in the decision. There is no decision taken by any of the authorities to withdraw the mahal from sale so as to entrust the management of the mahal to the department. 16. The decision in Charan Muchahary v. State of Assam and Ors. 2005 (2) GLJ 233, also does not render any assistance whatsoever in the matter. In the said decision the court observed: - ... the very word 'resale' would signify an act of an earlier sale. Admittedly, the Mahal in question was not sold pursuant to the sale notice dated 27.1.2004. In such a situation, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the Mahal could have been attempted to be resold by issuing the resale notice dated 4.9.2004.... ...Having taken the view indicated, it is only logical that we arrive at the conclusion that the Mahal could not have been attempted to have been sold by publication of the resale notice dated 4.9.2004 and what should have been done is publication of a fresh sale-notice after conforming to the requirements spelt out by Rule 4 of the Rules. The decision upon which the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on not only does not support the case set up by him but completely goes against the two propositions he urged. The decision upon which the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on not only does not support the case set up by him but completely goes against the two propositions he urged. It is not a case of any withdrawal of sale nor is it a case of resale. It is a case where authorities have decided to publish a fresh notice inviting tenders from the intending bidders. Such a situation had arisen because the competent authority refused to accept the highest bid. 17. No other point is urged. 18. For the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed