T M PEERMOHAMED Vs. D F O TENMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a forest contractor. Pursuant to the notification issued by the forest Department of the Kerala Government regarding the auction sale of the right of collection and removal of the entire tree growth except the rose wood trees standing or lying felled from the area mentioned in the notification, the petitioner participated in the auction and as he was the highest bidder the bid was knocked down in his favour. He deposited Rs. 10,000 as required by the conditions of the auction. He also executed an agreement on stamp paper to the effect that he will not withdraw from the purchase. He is also said to have signed the sale list.

(2.) THE Divisional Forest Officer, Thenmala Range, by his order dated 28-9-1973, ext. P-3, cancelled the auction held by him and notified a reauction to be held on 19-10-1973. The petitioner has come to this court challenging Ext, P-3 order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer as incompetent. No reasons are indicated in ext. P-3 order for cancellation of the earlier auction. It is agreed that there was no confirmation pursuant to the auction held on 28-9-1973. Such confirmation was to be by the second respondent and there was no occasion for him to consider this matter. 2-A. Clause (v) of the conditions (as seen in Ext. P-1) of the auction specifies :

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the bid having been knocked down in his favour he was entitled to the confirmation, and consequently the right, to work under the terms of the contract and that has been taken away illegally and unreasonably by the first respondent by Pessing Ext. P-3 order. What is urged at the hearing is that though the Divisional Forest Officer reserved to himself the power to accept the highest bid or reject it, in this case the power had already been exercised when the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted. Therefore nothing remained for the divisional Forest Officer to do. Whether the bid was to be confirmed in terms of clause (v) of the conditions of auction or not, was for the competent authority to decide. The competent authority is the second respondent and he has not exercised his mind to cancel the auction or to direct re-auction. In short, the case of the petitioner is that having bid in auction a right has accrued to him and that would be sufficient to entitle him to challenge the act of the Divisional Forest officer by way of cancellation, an act which could have been done only by the second respondent.