K. Lahiri, C.J. - (1.)THE short question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the Government/Governor of Assam in exercise of the power under Rule 21 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, for short "the Rules", can grant extension of a Mahal after the expiry of the period of lease. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner claims that he was entitled to extension of the period of lease and the Government has illegally rejected his prayer for extension. The relevant facts are as follows.
(2.)THE Petitioner was settled with Sand Mahal No. 23 of 1982 -84. The term of the settlement was from 15.7.82 to 14.7.84. As required under "the Rules" the Petitioner was asked to deposit the security money as well as the kist money for getting the lease deed executed. On pretexts and pretence the Petitioner defaulted. In consequence thereof no lease deed was executed. The further consequence was that the Sand Mahal a source of revenue for the Government -remained unused and un -extended and the Government Suffered loss. The term of settlement/lease was for two years which expired on 4.7.84. The Petitioner made on application under Rule 21 of 'the Rules' praying for extension of the term of the lease of the Mahal. The Government entertained his petition but rejected it by the impugned order dated 23.5.85. The pith and substance of the order is that the Government/Governor regretted its inability to consider the prayer of the Petitioner to extend the term of the lease.
Apparently, the Petitioner was responsible for keeping the Mahal unused and unutilized for over two years. He did not deposit the security money which he was obliged to deposit to obtain the lease of the Mahal. His right to obtain the lease was dependent on the payment of security money as well as the kist money. As such, the Petitioner cannot claim that he had the right to exit it sand in the Mahal as there was no lease in his favour. As the Petitioner did not execute the lease he could not acquire those rights conferred by the lease. One of such right is to get the period of lease to be extended. As the Petitioner could not obtain any lease for his own default he could not claim any right flowing from the terms of the lease, which was to be executed by him. In our opinion, a successful tenderer cannot claim my right of extension of the lease unless there exists a valid lease in his favour. The provision of Rule 21 of "the Rules" is clear that a lease -holder can ask for and obtain extension of the period of lease. When there was no existing lease in his favour, the Petitioner had so right to ask for extension of the period of the lease. On that count alone the petition muse fail.

(3.)MR . K.C. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order rendered by the Governor in exercise of power under Rule 21 of "the Rules" is invalid as It is not a speaking order. We are of the firm opinion that before a person claims the right of extension of the lease he must establish that he has a valid lease in his favour. In the instant case when admittedly the Petitioner had no lease in his favour the Governor could not have cotertained his application under Rule 21 of "the Rules", In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that he had a right to obtain extension under Rule 21 of 'the Rules' and as such the application must fail.
;