BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 3284 of 1973 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court is the appellant before us.

(2.) The appellant is a forest contractor, who had been declared to be the highest bidder at an auction of forest produce conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur on 21-11-1972 in pursuance of the notification Ext. R2 dated 27-10-1972. The appellant's bid was accepted by the competent authority and the sale was confirmed in his name by the Conservator of Forests, Quilon as per the said officer's proceedings dated 27-12-1972. In spite of the fact of confirmation of sale having been intimated to him, the appellant failed to comply with the requirement specified in condition 8 of the sale notice regarding deposit of the balance amount required to make up 2/3 of the bid amount. Hence he was called upon by the notice Ext. P2 dated 23-1-1973 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur to show cause why auction should not be taken against him under Clause.8 of the sale notice for forfeiting the amount already remitted by him and for holding a reauction at the appellant's risk and recovering from him any loss that may result from such resale. An explanation was submitted by the appellant, of which Ext. P3 is a copy. That did not however satisfy the Divisional Forest Officer and hence the latter informed the appellant as per Ext. P4 that the coupe would be resold in auction at his risk as per the sale notice conditions. Accordingly a resale was conducted which resulted in a deficit of about Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant was thereafter called upon as per notice Ext. P6 dated 20 8 1973 issued to him by the Divisional Forest Officer to remit within fifteen days an amount of Rs. 39,900/- which was stated to represent the net loss caused to the department after setting off the amount of Rs. 10,000/- already remitted by the appellant. The appellant was also informed by the said notice that in the event of his failure to remit the amount within the time specified action would be taken against him under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the said amount. The appellant thereupon came up to this Court and filed OP. No. 3284 of 1973 praying that Ext. P6 should be quashed and that a writ of mandamus should be issued to respondents Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the State of Kerala, the Conservator of Forests, Quilon and the Divisional Officer, Punalur respectively directing them to forbear from taking any steps against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount mentioned in Ext. P6. It was contended in the writ petition that since no agreement had been executed by the writ petitioner (appellant) after the confirmation of the auction sale there was no concluded contract on the strength of which revenue recovery proceedings could be taken against him and that, in any event, even going by the terms and conditions of the sale notice there had not been any breach of contract on the part of the petitioner (appellant) so as to render him liable to make good any loss which might have resulted to the Government from the resale even under the terms and conditions of the sale notice.

(3.) The learned single Judge held that even though there was force in the writ petitioner's contention that there was no completed contract, he was nonetheless liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the loss occasioned by the resale by virtue of the specific provision contained in S.79 of the Kerala Forest Act. In this view the challenge against Ext. P6 was held to be devoid of merit and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the writ petitioner.