1. This is an application for review of our judgment and order dated 9-7-82 in Civil Rule 434 of 1982. for short 'the Writ Petition.'
2. The facts leading up to the present review application are that Shri Kinaram Das filed 'The Writ Petition' questioning the validity of the appellate order passed by the Conservator of Forests. Northern Assam Circle. Tezpur. 'The Conservator' for short. Simultola Cotton Mahal No; 4 had been advertised for sale under the Assam Sale of Forest Coupes and Mahal Rules. 1977. 'the Rules' for short. The present petitioner Md. Abdul Sobhan (respondent No. 4 in 'the writ petition') offered Rs. 13.101 whereas Kinaram Das offered Rs. 24,151, Kinaram Das is a member of the listed class. The period of settlement is from 1-3-82 to 31-8-82. The Divisional Forest Officer accepted the offer of Kinaram Das. but the Conservator found certain technical error in the tender and reiect-ed it. He accepted the offer of Md. Abdul Scbhan. The Government thereby was to suffer a loss of about Rs. 11,000. This Court found that the appellate authority had no .jurisdiction vested in it by law to reiect the tender of Kinaram Das. On perusal of the tender forms we noted that the errors committed by Kmaram were technical and trivial arithmetical errors and they were rectifiabl.e and could have been rectified before the appellate authority. In any event, we hold that the reiection of Kinaram's tender was invalid, violative of the known principles of law, unjust. unfair and not in consonance with the provisions of any law. Accordingly, we quashed the order cf settlement made by the appellate authority in favour of Md. Abdul Sobhan. It is true that on 9-7-82, when we disposed of 'the Writ Petition', none appeared on behalf of the present petitioner. However, we were fully aware of his case and considered the validity of the appellate order. In support of the appellate authority, Senior Government Advocate appeared and made submissions Upon hearing the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, we found that the impugned order was insupportable. The entire attack was against the impugned order passed by the appellate authority and it was held by this court that it was invalid. Even if the present petitioner Md. Abdul Sobhan or his counsel would have been present, the order could not have been otherwise. It is true that Abdul Sobhan had filed an affidavit-in-opposition and his counsel had also appeared attendance but on perusal of the said affidavit and upon hearing the learned counsel for Abdul Sobhan we do not find any new material which was not argued by the learned Senior Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellate authority and the State Government. We have scrutinised the entire judgment. the affidavit of Abdul Sobhan and hold that no iniustice was caused to Abdul Sobhan. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length but we do not find any ground whatsoever to hold that the order was erroneous, uniust or improper.
3. Assuming that this court has power to review its own final order, the exercise of the said power must be sparingly used to rectify any injustice caused to the aggrieved warty, I' the instant case, counsel for Md. Abdul Sobhan submits that on the date of hearing of 'the Writ Petition', namely, on 9-7-82. the names of the counsel for Abdul Sobhan was not shown in the cause list and. therefore, the learned counsel could not appear to support the order quashed by us. It is correct that the names of the learned counsel were not shown in the cause list. However, can this be a ground for reviewing an order, which is otherwise just proper and in accordance with the law? We are of the firm opinion that when injustice has not been caused to the party and the iudgment and order is fair, mere absence of one of the parties by itself cannot be a sufficient ground for reviewing the order. Further, in the instant case, the impugned order was the order of the Government and though the learned Government Advocate made valiant attempts to support the order of the Conservator of Forests. Yet we rejected the contentions and quashed the order. By our order the State Government is affected. Neither in the petition nor before us. the learned counsel for Abdul Sobhan pointed out any lacuna or loophole in the decision rendered by us. on 9-7-82. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that even after hearing the learned counsel for Abdul Sobhan. we reach the very same conclusion that the appellate order was illegal, void and was rightly declared to be invalid.
4. On the top of all. the question of review is not called for as after only 7 days the term of the settlement is going to terminate. It has been rightly urged by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the season for plucking 'Si-mul cotton' is long over. and. in fact, Kinaram could not obtain any benefit of the order. Learned Senior Government Advocate produces before us a note of the D.F.O. to show that it was a seasonal Mahal and the harvesting period of Si-multola Cotton is lone over and the petitioner in 'the Writ Petition' could not obtain any benefit of the decision in his favour in 'the Writ Petition' rendered by us.
5. To rehear the 'writ petition afresh, at this stage, would be only a futile exercise of academic interest. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the period of settlement in favour of Kinaram Das will be over by 31-8-82 and as yet he could not be Put in possession of the Mahal in auestion in view of the technical difficulties set forth in the report of the D.F.O. Learned Sr. Government Advocate desires to obtain an opinion from us as to what ought to be done by the State. We have clearly expressed that Kinaram shall obtain the benefit up to 31-8-82 and no further. If so, in fact, due to any technical snag or any other predicament the officials of the Government could not put Kinaram in possession of the Mahal and if done in good faith their action cannot be ascribed as unjustified. However, we do not express any opinion in this regard and leave the matter at that.
6. In the result, we find no merit in the review application and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.