LAWS(APH)-1977-9-45

MALLELA MUNA SWAMY Vs. THE ANDHRA PRADESH GOVT.

Decided On September 26, 1977
Mallela Muna Swamy Appellant
V/S
The Andhra Pradesh Govt. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the suit for a declaration that he is not liable to pay Rs. 1690/-to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff. The plaint allegation's are that the 2nd defendant put up the lease of the Faggot wood coupe No. XI Seshapuram unit in Bhakarapet range for the year 1962-63 for public auction on 27-2-1962 at Chittoor. The plaintiff, who is a forest contractor, deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- as earnest money for participating in the auction of that unit as per the sale condition No. 15 (4) and took part in the auction of that unit along with several other forest contractors. He was declared the highest bidder of that lease unit. He signed the sale list for the same immediately after the sale was knocked down in his favour. As per condition No. 17 he paid the sum of Rs. 400/- to the Range Officer, Bhakarapet Range. On the same day the lease of Ramapuram Unit in the Faggot Wood coupe No. XI in the same range, for the year 1962-63 was also put up for public auction by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff and some other contractors took part in that auction upto some time and thereafter the plaintiff withdrew from participation as he was informed that he was not eligible to take part in the said auction because he did not deposit the earnest money of Rs. 100/- for that auction as per sale condition No. 15 (4). He was not aware as to what happened subsequent to the auction of that unit. The 2nd defendant through proceedings ROC No. 2468/61-1 Dated 27-2-62, 19-3-62 and 28-3-62 called upon the plaintiff to pay the sale amount for Ramapuram lease unit for which he was the highest bidder. The plaintiff sent a reply on 9-4-62 stating the facts as noted above and denying his liability to pay the sale amount for that unit. Then the 2nd defendant through Roc. 2668/62-1 dated 30-4-1962 intimated the plaintiff that Ramapuram unit was rationed on 4-4-1962 and the Govt, suffered a loss of Rs. 1690/- and directed the plaintiff to pay the said amount to the Government. The plaintiff alleged that the condition relating to the deposit of earnest money was not complied with and that he did not participate in that auction till the end and therefore he is not liable to pay the alleged loss to the Government. He was entitled to withdraw from the auction proceedings before the sale was knocked down in his favour and till the District Forest Officer confirmed the sale in his favour and declared him as the purchaser. The District Forest Officer had not accepted the bid of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and thereafter filed the suit. The 1st defendant filed a written statement. He denied the plaint allegations. He stated that the plaintiff was the successful bidder in that auction and that the plaintiff knew everything about it. In fact he was demanded to pay the amount for that Ramapuram unit. In default, the reauction was conducted and the Government sustained a loss of Rs. 1690/-. The plaintiff alone is liable to pay the said loss.

(2.) The trial Court framed several issues, the first of them being, whether the plaintiff is not liable to pay the difference in auction amount in respect of Ramapuram Unit, the second being, whether loss of Rs. 1690/-sustained by the Government is not the direct consequence of the default of the plaintiff and the third being whether there is no liability on the part of the plaintiff to pay the amount claimed. The trial Court found these three issues in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial court also found on issue No. 7 that the Government is competent to recover the arrears by coercive process, if it is found that the plaintiff is liable therefor. In the result, the trial Court decreed the suit.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge after going through the entire evidence was of the view that the plaintiff participated in the auction and was the highest bidder even though he did not deposit Rs. 100/-as earnest money. Ex. B-l the auction list shows that the plaintiff was the highest bidder. If the plaintiff has not signed in the bidder's list that cannot affect the concluded contract between the parties. The plaintiff was only anxious to evade the contract and not to pay the amount. Ultimately the learned Judge held that the plaintiff was the successful bidder in the auction of Ramapuram unit, but he did not pay the requisite amount and consequently the necessity arose for reauction of that unit resulting in a loss of Rs. 1690/-and that the Government is within its rights to recover the said amount from the plaintiff by appropriate proceedings under law. In the result the appeal was allowed and the Judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside.