Manojit Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RK Bora, learned counsel representing State Respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing Respondent No.6, assisted by Mr. SU Ahmed, Advocate. None appeared for Respondent No.7. The array of counsels/senior counsel is common in both the writ petitions i.e. WP(C) 4360/2014 and WP(C) 4358/2014. The primary issues for adjudication being similar, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by a common order.

2. The cases arise from the Sale Notice dated 5.9.2013, issued under the hand of the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division, Karimganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'DFO') under Rule 32(1) and 33(1) of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'AMMC Rules, 2013') whereby bids were invited for grant of mining contract for collection of Boulder/Stone/Gravel/Sand Gravel. Amongst the Mining Units put up for tender sale, it also included the Kalain Minor Mineral Unit No.1 (Stone) - the subject matter in WP(C) 4360/2014, and the Kalain Minor Mineral Unit No.2 (Stone) - the subject matter in WP(C) 4358/2014.

3. The petitioner, the Respondent No.6 and the Respondent No.7 in WP(C) 4360/2014 had offered Rs. 4,05,00,000/-, Rs. 6,28,00,000/- and Rs. 4,53,04,000/- respectively covering a total period of 7 years. The individual standings as per comparative bids were that Respondent No.6 became the highest bidder, followed by Respondent No.7 and then the petitioner in respect of Unit No.1.

4. The petitioner, the Respondent No.6 and the Respondent No.7 in WP(C) 4358/2014 had offered Rs. 3,10,00,000/-, Rs. 7,86,00,000/- and Rs. 5,17,30,000/- respectively. Accordingly, the Respondent No.6 became the highest bidder, followed by Respondent No.7 and then the petitioner in respect of Unit No.2.

5. After evaluation of respective bids, recommendation was made by the DFO for issuing Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent No.6 in both the writ petitions. The matter having reached the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest force, Assam (hereinafter referred to as 'PCCF & HoFF'), a decision was made for putting both the Mahals to re-sale on grounds that many documents furnished by the tenderer were not in his favour and also that the financial capability of the highest tenderer was negligible as compared to the amount offered.

6. The decision of the PCCF was communicated to the DFO vide letter dated 8.1.2014, whereupon a Re-sale Notice was notified on 22.1.2014. The Respondent No.6 in both WP(C) 4358/2014 and WP(C) 4360/2014 preferred appeals under Rule 68(2) of the AMMC Rules, 2013 before the Government in the Environment and Forest Department, being aggrieved of the decision of putting the Mahals to re-sale. During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondent No.7, who is common in both the cases, had also preferred two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) 756/2014 and WP(C) 780/2014 before this Court assailing the Re-Sale Notice. The said cases, however, stood disposed of by orders of like date i.e. 12.3.2014 when it was brought to notice that M/s D&J Suppliers and M/s Trio Stoney Mart (Respondent No.6 in the instant cases and impleaded as Respondent No.7 in WP(C) 780/2014 and WP(C) 756/2014 respectively) had already preferred statutory appeals before the appellate authority. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were closed granting liberty to the Respondent No.7 i.e. Rajib Das to participate in the appeal proceedings by getting himself impleaded. This Court had also observed that the appellate authority would dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible.

7. The appeals were heard and allowed. By the order of the appellate authority dated 21.7.2014 i.e. the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Environment and Forest Department, a direction was made to the PCCF to issue Letter of Intent in favour of M/s D & J Suppliers