1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that a tender notice dated 02.03.2016 was published for sale of "NKD-B-2 Safakama Mining Contract Area" (for short, "mining area") , for the period 2016-2023, wherein the last date for receipt of tender was fixed on 28.03.2016, up to 3-00 P.M. It is pleaded that, subsequently, by paper publications in "Axomiya Khabor" and "Dainik Agradoot", both dated 23.04.2016, the last date for receipt of tender was extended to 24.05.2016 and, then, again to 30.05.2016 vide paper publication dated 27.05.2016 published in "Niyomiya Barta" and "The Sentinel". The petitioner had submitted his tender for the same. On 30.05.2016, the tenders were opened and it was found that 5 (five) tenderers had submitted their tenders. Out of the five tenders, except the tender of the petitioner, tenders of other tenderers were found to be defective. While the petitioner was legitimately expecting formal order of settlement, a re-sale notice dated 25.06.2016 was issued in one Assamese newspaper, namely, "Axomiya Khabor" in respect of the same mining area and this prompted the petitioner to approach this court by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit on 29.08.2016 to bring on record a paper publication effected in respect of the said tender notice dated 02.03.2016 in "Niyomiya Barta" in its publication dated 04.03.2016.

4. Mr. Roy has submitted that the lease granted to the earlier lessee in respect of the same mining area, who had quoted a sum of Rs. 1,22,00,000.00/- for a period of 7 (seven) years, had to be terminated as the said amount was an unworkable amount and it was after such termination the Tender Notice dated 02.03.2016 was issued for settlement of the said mining area. It is submitted by him that the petitioner had quoted almost Rs. 9 lakhs more than the reserved price of the mining area and, therefore, the issuance of the impugned re-sale notice dated 25.06.2016 is wholly not sustainable in law.

5. Mr. Roy has submitted paper publication was issued not only in one Assamese Newspaper, but also in one English Daily, namely, "The Sentinel", in its issue dated 04.03.2016 published from Guwahati. He has also placed a copy of such paper publication for perusal of the court and the same is kept in the record of the case.

6. Mr. Chutia has produced the records. On the basis of the letter dated 09.03.2018, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, Rangia, addressed to (i) the Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam and (ii) the Chief Conservator of Forest (T), Central Assam Circle, Guwahati, with copy to him,, he submits that Election Code of Conduct was imposed with effect from 04.03.2016 as a result of which it could not be confirmed as to whether the sale notice dated 02.03.2016 was published or not. It is submitted by him that from 02.03.2016 to 28.03.2016, neither any tender paper was sold nor anyone had approached the Division in respect of tender papers. It is submitted by him that permits were issued to various Government Departments for extraction of minor minerals from the mining area to execute Government developmental works and an amount of Rs. 44,02,164.00/- was realized for the period from 01.04.2017 to 05.03.2018. He submits that the State expects to earn more revenue than the tendered amount of the petitioner.

7. The letter dated 09.03.2018 along with its enclosures is also placed on record.

8. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 endorses the submission of Mr. Chutia that the mining area would fetch more revenue than what is offered by the petitioner.

9. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the partie