I.A. Ansari, J. - (1.)BY this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of these five writ petitions, namely, WP(C) Nos. 555/2008, 841/2008, 1779/2008, 1789/2008 and 3020/2008 and also Misc. Case No. 1765/2008, inasmuch as all the writ petitions and the said miscellaneous case are closely interlinked with each other and decision, in any of these writ petitions, would have a bearing on the outcome of the remaining writ petitions.
(2.)I have heard Mr. D. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 555/2008, 841/2008 and 1779/2008, and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. I have also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, appearing, on behalf of the private respondent in WP(C) Nos. 555/2008, 841/2008 and 1779/2008 aforementioned and, on behalf of the petitioner, in WP(C) Nos. 1789/2008 and 3020/2008, the petitioner, in WP(C) Nos. 1789/08 and 3020/2008, being the private respondent in the remaining writ petitions as mentioned hereinbefore.
The material facts, which have given rise to these writ petitions, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) Kukurmara Sand mahal was, on 4.1.2007, settled, for the period 2006 -08, in favour of Shri Nayan Chandra Teron, i.e., the private respondent in WP(C) Nos. 555/2008, 841/2008 and 1779/2008, and petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 1789/2008 and 3020/2008 ('the settlement holder'), at Rs. 1,18,50,000. An agreement, in writing, was accordingly executed, on 18.4.2007, stipulating therein the due dates of payment of installments, (i.e., kist money). On the request made by the settlement holder, namely, Nayan Chandra Teron, the schedule for payment of kist money, from 2nd to 8th kist, was modified. The due date for payment of 4th kist money fell on 17.1.2008. The settlement holder did not, however, pay the said kist money and consequently, a notice for re -sale, at the risk of the settlement holder, was issued, on 28.1.2008, by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Kamrup Division, fixing 12.2.2008 as the last date for receiving tenders. Pursuant to the said notice of re -sale, Joydev Das, [i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 555/2008, 841/2008 and 1779/2008 and who is hereinafter referred to as the 'tenderer'] submitted his tender. However, on 11.2.2008, [i.e., one day before the last date, (i.e., 12.2.2008) fixed for submission of tenders], the settlement holder deposited Rs. 5,00,000 as part payment of the 4th kist money. Following the deposit so made, Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, extended, on 12.2.2008, the date for receiving tenders from 12.2.2008 to 29.2.2008. Aggrieved by the extension of the last date fixed for submission of tenders, Joydev Das, (i.e., the tenderer aforementioned) filed, on 14.2.2008, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 555/2008 aforementioned. In the meanwhile, and to be more precise, on 18.2.2008, the settlement holder further deposited a sum of Rs. 3,25,000. While issuing notice of motion, on 27.2.2008, in WP(C) No. 555/2008, the court passed an order directing the State respondents not to finalize the tenders pursuant to the resale notice, dated 12.2.2008. The settlement holder, then, deposited, on different dates, diverse sums of money and, eventually, on 28.2.2008, on receiving the balance amount of the 4th kist money, Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, allowed the settlement holder to operate the mahal till the next date on which the 5th kist money would fall due, i.e., until 17.4.2008. This was followed by a notice, dated 28.2.2008, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, withdrawing the re -sale notice, dated 28.1.2008 (whereby the date for submission of tenders had been extended from 12.2.2008 to 29.2.2008).

(ii) The notice, dated 28.2.2008, aforementioned, whereby the said resale notice was withdrawn, came to be challenged by the tenderer, namely, Joy dev Das, by way of another writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 841/2008. As the extension of the re -sale notice, which was subject -matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 555/2008, was pending and yet, without permission of the court, the said re -sale notice had been withdrawn rendering thereby the writ petition, [i.e., WP(C) No. 555/2008] infructuous, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, on 24.3.2008, sought for leave of the court to allow Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, to withdraw the notification, dated 28.2.2008, whereby the earlier re -sale notice had been withdrawn. The leave, so sought for, on behalf of the State respondents, was not resisted, on behalf of the tenderer, namely, Joydev Das, and the court accordingly granted leave to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, to withdraw the notice, dated 28.2.2008. By a notice, dated 29.4.2008, the withdrawal of the resale notice, which had been published on 28.2.2008, was withdrawn. Consequently, the re -sale notice, dated 28.1.2008, which had been extended, on 12.2.2008, till 29.2.2008, came into force once again. Thus, WP(C) No. 841/2008, which had put to challenge the withdrawal of the re -sale notice, became infructuous.

(iii) Before the notice, dated 29.4.2008, withdrawing the withdrawal notice of re -sale, was published, the settlement holder had deposited Rs. 50,000 as part of 5th kist money, but did not, admittedly, deposit, within due date, the balance amount of the 5th kist money. A re -sale notice, dated 2.5.2008, was, then, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, putting the said mahal on re -sale. This new re -sale notice, dated 2.5.2008, has been challenged by the tenderer, namely, Joydev Das, on the ground that when the re -sale notice, which was initially issued on 28.1.2008, had still not been finalized, the issuing of re -sale notice, once again, as has been done, is illegal. This writ petition has given rise to WP(C) No. 1779/2008, whereby the writ petitioner, namely, Jaydev Das, (i.e., the tenderer) has sought to get set aside the second re -sale notice, dated 2.5.2008, and also to get the process of re -sale, which had been initiated with the publication of the notice, dated 28.1.2008, completed.

(iv) While issuing notice of motion, on 9.5.2008, in WP(C) No. 1779/2008, the court suspended the second re -sale notice, dated 2.5.2008, with further direction that the status quo, as on the date of passing of the said order, shall be maintained by the parties concerned as regards the said sand mahal. However, before the directions, as indicated here before, were passed, on 9.5.2008, in WP(C) No. 1779/2008, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, withdrew, on 3.5.2008, the second re -sale notice, dated 2.5.2008. Thus, the WP(C) No. 1779/2008 too has become infructuous.

(v) Before, however, the court entertained the writ petition, and passed the interim order, on 9.5.2008 as aforementioned hereinabove, the settlement holder too filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 1789/2008, whereby he sought for directions to be issued to the State respondents to allow him, (i.e., the settlement holder) two months' time, w.e.f. 17.4.2008, to pay the 5th kist money of Rs. 17,04,178 and also to permit him to operate the mahal without any disturbance on the ground, inter alia, that he had not been able to operate the mahal effectively as some permit holders had also been extracting sand from the said mahal. In this writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 1789/2008, no specific order has been passed. The settlement holder has filed yet another writ petition, which has given rise to WP(C) No. 3020/2008, whereby he has sought for directions to be issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, to receive the balance amount of the 5th kist money and allow him, (i.e., the settlement holder) to operate the mahal, the grievances of the settlement holder being that some unknown persons as well as some permit holders had been extracting sand from the said sand mahal and, consequently, he had not been able to extract sand. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with other writ petitions for disposal. Thereafter, by making a miscellaneous application, in WP(C) No. 555/2008, which has given rise to Misc. Case No. 1765/2008, Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, has sought for leave of this Court to withdraw the re -sale notice, dated 28.1.2008, aforementioned, contending, inter alia, that since the settlement holder, (i.e., Nayan Chandra Teron) had paid the balance amount of the 4th kist money, the re -sale notice, dated 28.1.2008, needs to be withdrawn and, in terms of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Assam Sale of Forest Produce Coupe and Mahal Rules, 1977 ('the said Rules'), the settlement holder needs to be given a fair consideration and, therefore, the settlement holder needs to be allowed to operate the mahal. This miscellaneous application has been resisted by the tenderer, i.e., Joy dev Das.

(3.)MR . D. Das, learned Counsel for the tenderer, namely, Joydev Das, has submitted that under the provisions of Rule 17 of the said Rules, if a tenderer fails, inter alia, to pay any of the installments within due date, it is obligatory, on the part of the State, to cancel the sale of the mahal and the mahal shall, then, be re -sold for the remaining part of the settlement period at the risk of the person, who had been granted the settlement. There is, contends Mr. D. Das, no provision, in the said Rules, empowering the State Government to grant extension of time for payment of installments. In such circumstances, the Government, according to Mr. Das, has no discretion to extend the period of deposit of installments.