JUDGMENT : UJJAL BHUYAN, J.:— Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee and Mr. JUNM Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel and Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Government of Assam for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of entire sale proceeding including tender notice dated 27.08.2018 for sale/settlement of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II in the district of Cachar. 3. Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an auction sale proceeding for sale/settlement of Chiri River Minor Minerals (Stone) Unit (briefly, the Mahal hereinafter) petitioner was settled with the said Mahal for a period of 7 years with effect from 01.09.2014 to 30.09.2021 vide settlement order dated 22.08.2014 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, i.e., respondent No. 4 at his offered bid value of Rs. 3,78,84,000.00. The settlement was for extraction of 84000 cubic meter of stone after obtaining clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. 4. It is stated that petitioner had obtained necessary clearance and is now running the said Mahal by regularly depositing the kist money. However, petitioner is yet to extract about 50% of the allotted quantity of stone. 5. As per mining plan of the Chiri River Minor Minerals (Stone) Unit, total area of the Mahal is 13.5 hectares with clearly demarcated boundaries. The total length of the contract area is 12 kilometers downstream and the stone gravels are available for extraction from the river bed of Chiri river which originates from the hills of North Cachar Hills district. 6. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has now carved out a portion of the aforesaid Mahal under settlement with the petitioner during the subsistence of the settlement period on his own which he has named as the Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II (in short, new Mahal). An advertisement was floated in the official website of the Forest Department, Govt. of Assam vide Auction No. 4, Dispatch No. B/5620-5629 dated 28.08.2018 for sale of the new Mahal for a period of 24 months for extraction of 50000 cubic meter of stone at the reserve price of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00 fixing 19.09.2019 as the last date for submission of tender and for opening of tender. of Assam vide Auction No. 4, Dispatch No. B/5620-5629 dated 28.08.2018 for sale of the new Mahal for a period of 24 months for extraction of 50000 cubic meter of stone at the reserve price of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00 fixing 19.09.2019 as the last date for submission of tender and for opening of tender. Such advertisement was also published in the local newspaper ‘Samayik Prasanga’ on 27.08.2018. 7. Petitioner has stated that when he opened the website on 01.09.2018, he could not find the schedule of the new Mahal, besides there being no archived tender(s) available in the departmental website. 8. Contending that such auction of the new Mahal is illegal, there being no creation and notification of such new Mahal and that such new Mahal was nothing but carving out a portion of the Mahal already settled with the petitioner, he submitted representation before respondent No. 4 on 06.09.2018 requesting him not to proceed further with the auction sale of the new Mahal. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 9. This Court vide order dated 14.09.2018 had directed the respondents to file affidavit indicating the schedule/boundary of the new Mahal and also to indicate whether the new Mahal was part of the Mahal settled with the petitioner. As an interim measure, respondents were directed not to finalise the tender. Relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2018 is extracted hereunder:— “Petitioner was settled with the Chiri River Minor Mineral (Stone) Unit by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, Silchar for a period of 7 years at the offer of Rs. 3,78,84,30.00 for the quantity of 84,000 m3 of stone vide the order dated 22.08.2014. It is contended that pursuant to such settlement, petitioner is operating the Chiri River Minor Mineral (Stone) Unit and the settlement is valid upto 21.08.2021. On 27.08.2018 a tender notice was issued in the local newspapers for auction sale of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II. According to the petitioner, he had clicked the official website of the Forest Department on 21.08.2018 and thereafter on subsequent dates to ascertain the schedule/boundary of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II but did not find any such schedule/boundary. He also did not find any previous tender in respect of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II. According to the petitioner, he had clicked the official website of the Forest Department on 21.08.2018 and thereafter on subsequent dates to ascertain the schedule/boundary of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II but did not find any such schedule/boundary. He also did not find any previous tender in respect of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II. Apprehending that Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II is a part and parcel of Chiri River Minor Mahal (Stone) Unit settled with the petitioner in which event he would be seriously prejudiced, petitioner had represented before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar, Silchar on 05.09.2018 to inform him as to whether the said Unit II is part of the Unit settled with him. Since there was no response, present writ petition has been filed. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. On the next date, Mr. Medhi shall place before the Court by way of a short affidavit the schedule/boundary of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II and also whether Unit-II is part of the Unit settled with the petitioner. In the meanwhile, respondents may proceed with the tender of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit II but the same shall not be finalized.” 10. Thereafter, affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4. Mr. Mazumdar has also submitted a bunch of papers relating to the new Mahal. 11. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Mines and Minerals Act) as well as the provisions of Assam Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2013 (Concession Rules) and contends that there is a laid down procedure for creation and notification of a Mahal. Without such creation and notification, a Mahal cannot be put to sale. Therefore, the impugned action of respondent No. 4 for settlement of the new Mahal is wholly untenable in law and is liable to be interfered with. Even if such a Mahal is created and notified, the auction sale/tender for allotment of such Mahal has to follow the procedure laid down under the Concession Rules, including issuing of public notice of 21 days. Even if such a Mahal is created and notified, the auction sale/tender for allotment of such Mahal has to follow the procedure laid down under the Concession Rules, including issuing of public notice of 21 days. He has also referred to the map of the Mahal settled with the petitioner and submits that carving out a portion thereof at the very top of the Mahal besides being legally impermissible would also render the mining operation of the petitioner economically unviable as the stones would be extracted upstream before entering into the Mahal of the petitioner. 12. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and submits that the Mahal in question is a new Mahal which is not a part of the Mahal settled with the petitioner. There is a gap of about 200 meters between the two Mahals in question. He submits that contention of the petitioner that the new Mahal has been carved out from the Mahal settled with the petitioner is not correct as it has been specifically denied by respondent No. 4. In this connection, he has referred to the GPS coordinates of the two Mahals as mentioned in the affidavit to highlight the separateness of the two Mahals and the fact that there is a gap of about 200 meters between the two Mahals. He further contends that petitioner himself had submitted bid for the new Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II. Therefore, contention of the petitioner is not at all acceptable, besides raising a question mark about the bona fides and conduct of the petitioner. 13. Mr. Bhattacharjee responded to the above by relying on the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner to highlight the fact that there is no Mahal called Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II and that it does not have any demarcated boundary. 14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the bunch of papers produced by Mr. Mazumdar. 15. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and the Concession Rules. 16. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (already referred to as Mines and Minerals Act) has been enacted for the development and regulation of Mines and Minerals under the control of the Union. Mazumdar. 15. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and the Concession Rules. 16. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (already referred to as Mines and Minerals Act) has been enacted for the development and regulation of Mines and Minerals under the control of the Union. Section 3(e) thereof defines ‘minor minerals’ to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette declare to be a minor mineral. Section 4 provides that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or as the case may be of a mining lease granted under the Mines and Minerals Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 10 deals with application for prospecting licence or mining lease which is part of the procedure for obtaining such licence or lease. 17. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15(1) and Section 23 C of the Mines and Minerals Act, Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (already referred to as the Concession Rules) have been made for regulating the grant of various forms of mineral concessions and for prevention of illegal mining. Rule 2(b) provides for boundary pillars with Global Positioning System (GPS) readings in black paint. Rule 2(q) defines ‘mineral concession’ to mean a mining lease or a mining contract or permit in respect of minor mineral and includes quarrying permits and any other mineral concession permitting the mining of minor mineral. As per Rule 2(u), ‘mining operations’ has been defined to mean any operation carried out for the purpose of winning any mineral excerpt mineral oils whereas Rule 2(y) defines ‘mining permit’ as a mineral concession other than a lease granted for a specified quantity of minor minerals to be extracted/collected within a specified period not exceeding two years in specified cases on payment of advance royalty. 18. 18. As per Rule 3(b), a mining lease or a mining contract or permit or any other concession or licence or transit pass or permit or licence or control or regulation of mining or other actions under the Concession Rules shall be granted/taken by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam or any officer authorised by the Government by notification in this behalf in respect of minor minerals for uses other than in industry as specified in Schedule Y, such as, gravel when used in construction of roads and buildings; boulder when used in construction of roads and buildings; and stones when used for making household utensils. 19. Rule 8 deals with grant of a mining lease through competitive bidding. As per Sub-Rule (1), no mining lease shall be granted by the competent authority unless it is satisfied that there is evidence to show that the area for which grant of mining lease is considered has been prospected earlier or the existence of minor minerals therein has been established otherwise. 20. Rule 11 provides for compactness and contiguity in a mining lease. 21. Rule 23 says that mining or quarrying may be granted by the competent authority in respect of any area not covered under any mineral concession already granted which includes mining in respect of areas ordinarily less than 5 hectares for a specified annual quantity of minor mineral. 22. Chapter 6 of the Concession Rules lays down the procedure for inviting competitive bids. Rule 34 which forms part of Chapter 6 provides that a public notice of 21 days shall be published for inviting bids or conduct of open auctions for the grant of mineral leases/contracts/permits as the case may be. Besides the above, the gist of such notice along with the schedule shall also be published in one daily newspaper having good circulation in the area. 23. Rule 39 lays down special conditions for excavation of minor minerals from river beds in order to ensure safety of river beds, structures and adjoining areas. 24. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of the Mines and Mineral Act and the Concession Rules, it is evident that before a new Mahal is notified certain steps are required to be taken and certain satisfaction has to be arrived at. The boundary has to be properly demarcated with boundary pillars having GPS readings. 24. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of the Mines and Mineral Act and the Concession Rules, it is evident that before a new Mahal is notified certain steps are required to be taken and certain satisfaction has to be arrived at. The boundary has to be properly demarcated with boundary pillars having GPS readings. Even thereafter, in auction sale/tender of such Mahal the laid down procedure has to be followed. 25. Though respondent No. 4 has contended that the Mahal is a new Mahal, nothing has been placed on record regarding creation and notification of such new Mahal. In fact, there is no departmental communication in this regard from the higher authorities to respondent No. 4. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that without creation and notification of such Mahal by following the laid down procedure, respondent No. 4 could not have initiated the tender process. Even after creation and notification of such Mahal, the procedure as laid down under the Mines and Minerals Act and the Concession Rules would have to be followed including issuance of public notice under Rule 34 of the Concession Rules. 26. Having regard to the above and on thorough consideration of the matter, Court is of the view that Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Forest and Environment Department should look into the matter and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Let such decision be taken, one way or the other, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till completion of the exercise as above, respondent No. 4 shall not proceed with the tender of Chiri Stone Mahal Unit-II. 27. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.