T D JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for our consideration in this case is whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution can be invoked to challenge orders of Government in respect of contractual rights and obligations. THE petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exts. P7 and p8 orders of the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Teak Plantation Division, parambikulam, the 2nd respondent herein, whereby he has ordered the forfeiture of certain security amounts and sale proceeds, as well as the recovery of amounts due from the petitioner to the Government, in terms of Ext. P1 contract dated 24-8-196 7.

(2.) IN accordance with Ext. P1 agreement the petitioner was granted by the State of Kerala the right to cultivate tapioca in Block Nos. 133 to 148 in the Parambikulam Teak Plantation Range for a period of two years. According to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to carry out the weeding operations in terms of the agreement. Clause. 17 to 20 of the Agreement give the State wide powers to cancel the petitioner's licence, forfeit his security amounts, confiscate his crops and take steps for recovery of all amounts due from him including fine, in the event of his failure to satisfactorily carry out his obligations in terms of the contract. IN such a case the Government has the right to complete the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit dated 30-5-1973 refers to a number of notices issued to the petitioner, both by the range Officers of the respective Ranges and by the 2nd respondent. All these notices were issued to the petitioner long before Ext. P2 series of notices were issued. It is therefore pointed out that the allegation that the principles of natural justice were violated is absolutely without basis. THE 2nd respondent points out that there was no cancellation of the petitioner's licence as the full period of two years had run out. THE amounts were confiscated and steps were initiated for recovery of the balance sum due from the petitioner on account of his failure to carry out his obligations under the contract THE contract fully provided for such forfeiture and recovery steps. He says that if the petitioner wanted to refer the matter for the final decision of the Conservator under Clause. 19 of the Agreement he should have said so. Most of the notices issued to the petitioner were unanswered by him. He refused to appear for the preparation of a mahazar despite notices calling upon him to do so. THE petitioner had requested for an extension of the contract which was not granted to him as he had tailed to remit the estimated cost of weeding as directed by the Department in the notice. He says that the leased area was resumed only after the expiry of the period of the lease on 23 - 8-1969. THE 2nd respondent therefore asserts that the sale of the crop as well as the resumption of the leased area were effected after notices were served on the petitioner. THE 2nd respondent further submits in the counter affidavit that if any contractual rights of the petitioner were violated, such rights could be vindicated only by means of a civil action and not under Art, 226 of the constitution.