STATE OF KERALA Vs. SHAJI UTHUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2004 in A.S.145/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha arising out of the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000 in OS 377/1997 of the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam. The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No. 377/1997 are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the above case. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant', according to their status in O.S.No. 377/1997, unless otherwise stated.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he is not liable for the loss of damages caused to the defendants in re-auctioning of 1586 and 210 numbers of teak poles described in the plaint and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.66,570/- with interest. According to the plaintiff, in the auction of teak poles conducted at Thundathil Range in Bhoothathankettu on 23.7.1996, he had bid 1897 numbers of class III teak poles, at the rate of Rs.660/- and 1041 numbers of class IV teak poles at the rate of Rs.192/-per pole. Out of the class III teak poles, he took delivery of 311 teak poles and the remaining poles were not taken possession as it were not available as per the specification fixed for the same. Later, on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the teak poles were removed from the lots and substituted with inferior quality poles. However, by letter dated 27.8.1997, he was informed that the said 1586 poles would be re-auctioned on 18.9.97 at his risk and costs. Though he made various representations stating that he is not liable to pay any amount as loss or damage, the representations were not considered by the defendants. He had also paid the value of 1041 teak poles of class IV, but took possession of 831 poles. The remaining 210 poles were not available at site. On enquiry, he understood that those teak poles were removed from the site. He paid a sum of Rs.46,570/- for the 210 teak poles including the forest development tax at 5% and sales tax at 10%. He also deposited Rs.20,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit. Since the defendants were responsible for supplying the above items as per the actual specifications, the present suit was filed for declaration and realization of money.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had bid various items of teak poles in the auction conducted on 23.7.1996 at Bhoothathankettu of Thundathil Range. It is admitted that 210 class IV teak poles were not removed. He did not remit the value of 1586 IIIrd class poles within the grace period. On the written request of the plaintiff, currency of the chalan was extended by one month by the Range Officer and another one month by the Divisional Forest Officer. He was also liable to pay penal interest to the belated remittance at 18% for the first month and 24% for the second month. The plaintiff deliberately did not raise any compliant touching the quality and quantity of the items till the notice intimating the re-auction was served on him. The contention that 1586 teak poles were substituted with inferior quality poles is not true. Such a complaint cannot be entertained after the sale. As the plaintiff failed to remit the dues within the time, he became a defaulter. Hence, by letter dated 27.8.1997, he was informed that the unremoved poles would be re-auctioned on 18.9.1997 at his risk and loss. Later, those teak poles were re-auctioned on 31.10.1995 as per the conditions of sale. The plaintiff is liable to pay the loss sustained by the Government in the re-auction. It is admitted that he had remitted the value and taxes of 1041 class IV teak poles. He was also issued permits for removing the same, but he removed only 831 poles within the time. On his request, the currency of permit was extended for the remaining 210 poles. But, he failed to remove the same within six months and the same were put up for re-auction on 19.12.1997 as per clause 6(c) of the sale conditions. He, being a defaulter, the plaintiff is not entitled to get refund of the sale proceeds of the 210 poles. The plaintiff himself is responsible for the re-auction. As there was wilful laches on his part, he is liable to make good the loss sustained by the Government.