(1.) The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent herein is under challenge in this appeal. The respondent applied in 1991 to the State Government for issue of permit under the lease agreement to enable him to collect forest produce (clove) on payment of outright price in the same manner and circumstances as other minor forest produces were allowed to be collected and exported. The respondent belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Manipur. When royalty was sought to be collected from the respondent, he had to approach the High Court for the relief. The respondent was allowed to collect the forest produce (clove) under the lease agreement dated 31-5-1991 for working of clove in Chandel District. The relevant clauses of the agreement read:
(2.) Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition without considering the number of contentions raised and the grounds stated in the counter-affidavit. According to him, the High Court did not deal with these contentions raised in the counter-affidavit.
(3.) In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order. He drew our attention to the lease agreement entered into between the parties, in particular to clauses 2 and 14, to contend that it was not open to the appellants to act contrary to the specific clauses contained in the agreement. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent acted on the basis of the said agreement; it was not open to the appellant to put any condition to the disadvantage of the respondent after he commenced the work under the agreement, particularly when on the date of the agreement the appellants could not impose any clause to collect royalty on clove as the rate of royalty was not fixed as on that date. He also submitted that the High Court passed an interim order on 18-12-1991, and the operative portion thereof reads: