BHOLA PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail correctness, legality and propriety of order dated 15-09-2002 (Annexure P-1), by which, agreement executed in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled and the security amount of the petitioner has been forfeited by the respondent No.3.

(2.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are in narrow encompass. As per prevailing system of sale of Tendu leaves through the agency of Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar Evam Vikas) Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, tenders were invited for purchase of tendu leaves, in response to which, the petitioner submitted his tender. His tender in respect of Lot No.0871A was accepted. THE petitioner was informed by the first respondent to be a successful bidder vide letter dated 24-08-2001. Later on, an agreement was executed between the parties in terms, of which, the petitioner was required to make payment of purchase price of Rs.5,58,710.63 in four installments starting from 16-10- 2001, last installment payable on 01-03-2002.

(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondent in forfeiting the security amount deposited by the petitioner against performance of contract is not only illegal but patently arbitrary. It is contended that the petitioner could not be penalized by forfeiture of security amount, because non payment of the installments was occasioned due to refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to make delivery of lot of tendu leaves. The petitioner was always ready and willing to take delivery of tendu leaves but it was because of the interim order passed by this Court on 27-08-2001, the petitioner was not allowed to take delivery of tendu leaves as per the agreement and the obligation, under the agreement, of making payment of 3rd and 4th installment, could not be fastened upon the petitioner due to failure on the part of the respondent and also could not be made a basis to forfeit the security amount. It is next contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondent in unilaterally extending the period of agreement and the dates of payment of 3rd and 4th installment is not at all binding on the petitioner. He submits that the agreement having been frustrated for whatever reasons, certainly not because of the fault of the petitioner, security amount as has been deposited by the petitioner, could not be forfeited. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Gazi vs. State of M.P. and others, (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 342.