LAWS(MAD)-1998-7-2

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU TEA PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED COONOOR Vs. SRINIVASA TIMBERS SALEM

Decided On July 24, 1998
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU, TEA PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED, COONOOR Appellant
V/S
SRINIVASA TIMBERS, SALEM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7-10-1996 passed in W.P. No. 15281 of 1994. By the order dated 17-8-1994, the appellants herein cancelled the order of confirmation of the highest bid of the respondent/petitioner and returned the Earnest Money Deposit by a crossed cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Pollachi. This order was challenged in the writ petition and sought for a direction to issue work orders on receiving due payments and executing the agreement in respect of lease unit for the disposal of 1240 standing silver oak trees in Valparai-Chinnakallar Division, Range-II/Field 8/Plot II.

(2.) The learned single Judge came to the conclusion on the basis that there was a concluded contract and the policy of the Government cannot certainly affect the concluded rights in favour of the respondent. It has also been observed that the acceptance of the Earnest Money Deposit by the respondent will not in any way deprive the right acquired by it under the order dated 2-6-1994 confirming the sale in its favour. But so far as the payment of the amount by the respondent is concerned, the learned single Judge has opined that the payment has been made just on the next day after the expiry of seven days, that will not normally deny the respondent the fruits of the confirmation of sale and allowed the writ petition as prayed for.

(3.) The questions for consideration in this writ appeal are : (i) whether the respondent is entitled for the lease of felling the trees in the forest area, on the face of the Government Order dated 11-8-1994, despite the fact that no agreement was entered into in pursuance of the auction sale, when the amount was not deposited within the required time and after accepting the return of the bid amount? and (ii) whether the order dated 17-8-1994 suffers from any legal infirmity?