STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. M. REVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY and correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 15158 of 2007, dated 6 -3 -2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is called in question in this appeal by the State and the Forest Department.

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are as hereunder: Forest Department conducted an auction of timber lots by notification dated 24 -4 -2007. Respondent participated in the tender and he became successful bidder in respect of 16 lots stated in para 1 of the writ petition. Subsequently, by an order dated 20 -3 -2007, the bid was confirmed in favour of the respondent -writ petitioner. Writ petitioner also participated in an auction conducted pursuant to another notification and purchased 5 lots, as stated in para 2 of the writ petition and the auction made by the respondent in respect of those 5 lots was also confirmed vide order dated 18 -4 -2007. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, respondent -writ petitioner was granted two months time to pay the sale price and required to lift the wooden logs purchased by him in the auction within 90 days from the date of auction. Respondent in terms of the contract could not pay the amount within the time stipulated and did not lift the material purchased by him, which resulted in passing an order forfeiting one -fourth of the bid amount and for re -auction by orders dated 6 -7 -2007, 24 -7 -2007/18 -8 -2007. The said orders forfeiting one -fourth of the bid amount and to re -auction the wood, was questioned by the respondent -writ petitioner by filing a writ petition.

(3.) GOVERNMENT filed a detailed counter. According to the Government, writ petition was not maintainable, as sale of the wooden logs was subject to the conditions enumerated in the notification. According to the appellants, it was well -within the knowledge of the respondent -writ petitioner that he had to deposit the money in terms of the notification and was required to adhere to the terms and conditions of the notification. Since there is a failure on his part in not depositing the money in accordance with the contractual terms, the amount has been forfeited and the wooden logs have been ordered for reauction. It is further contended that respondent -writ petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the relief is arising out of a contractual obligation. In the circumstances, Government requests the Court to dismiss the writ petition.