JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned State Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, assisted by Mr. A.K. Hussain, Advocate. 2. Challenge is made to the legality and validity of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 30.5.2014 in respect of settlement of 30/128 Mora Gaurang Fishery under Bilasipara Sub-Division which is a 60% category fishery, for a period of 7 years w.e.f. 1.6.2014 to 31.5.2014. The last date for receiving tenders was fixed until 2 PM of 12.6.2014. 3. Petitioner contends that the last date of submission of tender having been fixed after 12 days from the date of issuance of NIT, the petitioner was not aware of the publication and therefore could not participate. Further contention is that the said NIT was not widely circulated among the public at large, as a result of which, the petitioner came to learn of the publication of the NIT only after the expiry of the last date of submission of tenders. Situated thus, the petitioner submits that the publication of the NIT dated 30.5.2014 is in blatant violation of the provisions under Rule 43 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953. For better appreciation, the said Rule 43 is extracted hereunder: "43. On receipt of Government's instruction in any particular year the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional officer shall fix a date not later than the 5th February, on which the settlement of the registered fisheries selected by Government will be made by him after calling for tenders from the public. The date fixed shall be proclaimed by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer at least a month in advance by a written notice in the form of APPENDIX-A posted at Sadar and Sub-Divisional Cutchery and at the Munsiff and Police Station within the local limits of which the fishery or any part of it is situated. The notice shall sate the name of the fishery the Mauza or Paragana within which it is situated and any other particulars that may be necessary for its identification, the term and price for which it was last settle the term for which it will now be settled and the date, place and conditions of settlement. The notice shall sate the name of the fishery the Mauza or Paragana within which it is situated and any other particulars that may be necessary for its identification, the term and price for which it was last settle the term for which it will now be settled and the date, place and conditions of settlement. The contents of the notice should also (if possible) be made known by beat of drum at the Bazar nearest of the fishery." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also makes reference to Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 to say that the same is pari materia to Rule 43 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953, which has been held to be a mandatory provision by virtue of a judicial pronouncement in the case of Sultan Mohammad Khan v. Salin Ahmed & ors, reported in 2006 (Supra) GLT 722. Whether or not the contention of the petitioner has force, it would be pertinent to look at Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, which is reproduced 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 least/settlement which shall not exceeds two years along with 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 sating 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 the news papers" 5. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned State Counsel by making reference to the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the Respondent No.3, submits that the said NIT was widely circulated at all concerned departments as per Rules and procedure. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned State Counsel by making reference to the affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the Respondent No.3, submits that the said NIT was widely circulated at all concerned departments as per Rules and procedure. Also the short time provided for submission of tender until 12.6.2014 had occasioned due to apprehension of immediate enforcement of Model Code of Conduct of Parliamentary Election 2014 w.e.f. 5.3.2014 to 31.5.2014. His further submission is that unlike Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, the provisions under Rule 43 of the Assam Fishery Rules do not prescribe any period between the date of issue of NIT and the last date of submission of tenders. 6. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondent no.4 by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition so filed submits that the petitioner society is a new society formed on 10.2.2014 and the fact of publication of the NIT was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. 7. A bare reading of Rule 43 makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer must specify a date only with regard to the date when settlement will be made. It further enjoins that the date that may be fixed for making settlement must be proclaimed at least a month in advance by a written notice in the form as in APPENDIX-A, which is the Sale Notice inviting tenders for settlement of fisheries. The time frame is only in respect of fixing the date on which settlement would be made and nothing beyond. There is no prescription in the said Rule 43 specifying any period and/or limiting the time by which tenders have to be submitted. In other words, there is no prescription of any definite period between the date of issuance of the NIT and the last date for submission of the tenders. Clause 1 of the Sale Notice (APPENDIX 'A') conforms to the prescription. 8. In so far as Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 is concerned, it explicitly and unambiguously provides that tender has to be called at least one month prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender. Clause 1 of the Sale Notice (APPENDIX 'A') conforms to the prescription. 8. In so far as Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 is concerned, it explicitly and unambiguously provides that tender has to be called at least one month prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender. The interregnum period between the date of issuance of tender and the last date for submission of tender is mandated under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1977, which is not so under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1953. 9. Although a reasonable space between the date of NIT and the last date for submission of tender is always an indispensable condition, however Rule 43 of the Rules of 1953 do not lay down any minimum period between the two dates. To reiterate, the prescription under Rule 43 is that a date has to be fixed indicating the date when settlement will be made and such date of settlement must be proclaimed at least one month in advance by a Sale Notice. Rule 43 of the Rules of 1953, unlike Rule 4 of the Rules of 1977, do not lay down any minimum fixed period between the date of NIT and last date fixed for submission of tender. 10. The contention of the petitioner that the NIT dated 30.5.2014 is bad in law being contrary to the provisions under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1953, is without force and substance. From the discussion above, it cannot be held that Rule 43 of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 is pari materia to Rule 4 of the Assam Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977. Accordingly, reliance placed upon the case of Sultan Mohammad Khan (supra) do not come to the aid of the petitioner. 11. The Writ Petition on the grounds urged is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly done. The parties are left to bear their own costs.