MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. DFO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Forest Contractor. He had entered into an agreement Ext. P-2 with Government in relation to the right to collect and remove logs and tops and fire-wood from an area of 126 Hectares of forest land within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur. The area was divided into three strips. One of the terms in the agreement was that extraction and conveyance, from one strip was to be over before work could commence in the next strip. The petitioner operated the first strip and according to him the extraction work was completed on 15-11-1980. There was, however, dispute regarding the rates payable for the goods to be removed. This led to a writ petition OP. No. 3952/1980. This Court required the petitioner to pay certain amounts and to execute a bond for the balance. The petitioner subsequently completed all the operations in the first strip and operated on the second strip. Here again there was dispute. According to the petitioner, he completed the work in the second strip by 5-5-1981, and thereafter he was entitled to operate on the third strip. On 30-5-1981 the petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 2,38,848-52 being the estimated price of the material to be extracted from the third strip. This was complied with. But the petitioner was not allowed to operate the third strip; on the other hand, he was asked not to enter the third at all.

(2.) According to the petitioner, there had been illegal collections made by the respondents in relation to the operation of the contract, and the extraction and removal of the logs and tops and fire-wood. The disputed collection came under four heads, namely, (1) Rs. 38,732-40 being the amount collected by virtue of some differences relating to the first strip, (2) Rs. 2,38,848-52 being the amount collected for the value of the timber in the third strip, which the petitioner was not allowed to operate, (3) Rs. 78,557 72 which the petitioner alleged had been collected in excess in relation to firewood and (4) an amount of Rs. 25,000/- collected as penalty. The petitioner sought refund of all these amounts, but did not get the same, whereupon be filed O.P. No. 4895/1981 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing return of these amounts.

(3.) The said Original Petition was disposed of by the judgment Ext. P-5. After adverting to the contentions of the parties, this court felt that the matters in controversy involve questions of fact which could not be gone into in proceedings under Art.226. This Court took note of Clause.25 in the agreement Ext. P-2 which runs in these terms:-