Mandatory prior consultation and no concluded contract invalidate forest settlement and defeat the government's action.

A provisional bid acceptance did not create a concluded contract because it was expressly subject to confirmation by the competent authority, and no effective acceptance of the later offer was communicated before the appellant withdrew it. The settlement of the forest coup in favour of the sixth respondent was also invalid because the relevant executive rule required prior consultation with the Finance Department before any action affecting State revenue and forest rights. That consultation was treated as a mandatory prerequisite, not a formality. The impugned settlement was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant and the Government had entered into a concluded contract on the acceptance of the bid or the subsequent confirmation. (ii) Whether the settlement of the forest coup in favour of the sixth respondent was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of prior consultation with the Finance Department under the Rules of Executive Business.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant and the Government had entered into a concluded contract on the acceptance of the bid or the subsequent confirmation.

Analysis: The initial acceptance by the Divisional Forest Officer was only provisional and expressly subject to confirmation by the competent authority. The alleged confirmation by Government did not amount to confirmation of that provisional acceptance; at best, it related to the appellant's later willingness to take the coup at the reserve price. There was also no effective communication of any acceptance of that later offer to the appellant, and in any event the appellant had withdrawn the earlier offer by his subsequent communication.

Conclusion: No concluded contract arose between the appellant and the Government.

Issue (ii): Whether the settlement of the forest coup in favour of the sixth respondent was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of prior consultation with the Finance Department under the Rules of Executive Business.

Analysis: The relevant executive rule prohibited action affecting State revenue and forest rights without prior consultation with the Finance Department. The relaxation did not authorise settlement by private treaty without such consultation. In the setting of a power affecting public revenue and private rights, the negative language of the rule and the consequence attached to disagreement under the consultative scheme showed that prior consultation was an essential prerequisite and not a mere formality.

Conclusion: The order settling the coup in favour of the sixth respondent was invalid for want of prior consultation and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the impugned settlement in favour of the sixth respondent was set aside, resulting in allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a governmental power is made subject to prior consultation in mandatory negative terms, compliance with that consultation is an essential condition for valid exercise of the power, and a provisional acceptance does not ripen into a concluded contract unless the required confirmation is actually and effectively completed.

---