SADHOO LAL MOTILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 232 of 1970 filed by Sadhulal, Writ Petition No. 373 of 1970 filed by Abdul Shakoor and Writ Petition No. 374 of 1970 filed by Shyama Charan Gupta were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as all the three peti tions relate to tenders for purchase of tendon leaves in the forest of Madhya Pradesh, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and raise questions of law which are more or less common to all the three petitions.

(2.) ON the 13th February, 1969, the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a Tender Notice published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary dated the 16th February, 1969, inviting tenders for purchase of tendu leaves in several Units of the Government forest. Under clause 9 of the Tender Notice, sealed tenders were to be submitted by 17.00 hrs. on the 3rd March, 1969, to the Conservator of Forests in whose juris diction the Unit was situated; under clause 10 (a), the tenders were to be opened by the Conservator of Forests concerned simultaneously at the speci fied places on the 6th March, 1969 and on subsequent specified dates. Abdul Shakoor and Shyama Charan Gupta petitioners in Writ Petition No. 373 of 1970 and 374 of 1970 submitted their tenders in respect of different Units. However, on the 31st March, 1969, i.e., sometime after the tenders were open ed, both of them separately sent letters to the Government withdrawing their tenders; these letters were admittedly received by the Government on the 2nd April, 1969. Meanwhile, however, the Government accepted the tenders of both of them on the 25th March, 1969. and appointed them as purchasers of tendu leaves in the respective Units. The orders of the Government were trans mitted to the concerned Conservators of Forests who addressed communications to the two tenderness regarding acceptance of their tenders and their appointment as purchasers on the 3rd April, 1969-These communications were received by the addressees on the 9th April. 1969. Thereupon, the State Government invit ed fresh, tenders for the two Units Oft the 5th April, 1969. Later both Abdul Shakoor and Shyama Charan Gupta re ceived intimations that they had com mitted default which landed the Gov ernment in losses and the Government claimed the difference in price offered by them and the price realised after re-sale. The two petitioners repudiated the liability on the ground that the tenders were withdrawn by them be fore they were accepted. Their re presentations were not heeded. In due course, the Government of Madhya Pra desh directed that the amounts due from them be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act. The authorities of the Government of Madhya Pradesh trans mitted the recovery orders to the Col lector of Banda in Uttar Pradesh, op posite party No. 6, who forwarded the same to the Tahsildar. Karvi, opposite party No. 6, for execution. The peti tions filed by Abdul Shakoor and Sh yama Charan Gupta challenge the au thority of the Collector of Banda and the Tahsildar Karvi, to recover the alleged dues as arrears of land revenue on the ground that nothing was due to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the orders for recovery were a nullity. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Con servator of Forests, Rewa, the Divisional Forest Officer as well as the Collector of Panna, in Madhya Pradesh, have been made parties to this petition. They appeared and contested the peti tions.

(3.) AS it turns out that the facts of Sadhu Lal's case are somewhat dif ferent from those of the cases of Abdul Shakoor and Shyama Charan Gupta, it is desirable to deal with Sadhu Lai's case separately at this stage. As al ready noticed, Sadhu Lal claims to have submitted his tender in response to the Tender Notice hung on the Notice Board of the Conservator of Forests; on behalf of the opposite parties, an at tempt has been made to pin down Sadhu Lal to the Tender Notice published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordi nary on the 26th March, 1969. It is, however, admitted on behalf of the op posite parties that the Tender Notice on which reliance is placed by the peti tioner did exist on the Notice Board of the Conservator of Forests. No attempt has been by them to disprove the claim of Sadhu Lal that it was on seeing the Tender Notice on the Notice Board that he filed the tender. The Tender Notice on the Notice Board of the Conserva tor of Forests does not in anyway re fer to the Tender Notice published in the Gazette; nor does the Tender it self in which a reference has been made to "Tender Notice" more than once, particularize the Tender Notice as the one published in the Gazette. I see no sufficient reason to disbelieve the statement of Sadhu Lal that he sub mitted the tender on the strength of the Tender Notice hung on the Notice Board of the Conservator of Forests. That being so, the opposite parties can not fall back upon the Tender Notice published in the Gazette to defend the action taken against Sadhu Lal as the references to Tender Notice in his ten der are to be construed as to the Ten der Notice hung on the Notice Board of the Conservator of Forests.