MOHD. ISHAQ Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Mahbubnagar, whereby the modified the judgment and decree of the trial court by directing that the entire amount deposited should be paid to the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to this action are as below:- The Divisional Forest Officer conducted an auction on 2-1-1959 for sale of the right to remove. Thangadu Bark in the forest area for three years 1959, 1960 and 1961. In the beginning the auction was held on taluk basis. As the bids were not satisfactory he decided to postpone the auction. The contractors then present, however, persuaded him to club all the units and auction them as one unit. The Divisional Forest officer accordingly held the auction. One Md. Ishaq happened to be the highest bidder, his bid amount being 1,00,000/- per year. Under the rules, the Divisional Forest officer could not confirm the sale if the amount exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. The conservator of forests, was the competent authority to confirm such bids. The Dvl. forest officer, therefore, knocked down the bid subject to confirmation by the competent authority. Unfortunately, the rules which governed this auction sale were not produced in the courts below. It was not even stated that this auction sale was held in pursuance of certain defined rules. There was no proclamation of sale from which the terms of sale could be ascertained. The Divisional Forest Officer immediately thereafter called upon the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 25,000/- being one fourth of the lease amount. The plaintiff deposited only Rs. 5,000/- and obtained exhibit A.1. The plaintiff did not get any intimation that the sale has been confirmed in his name. In fact, it was the case of the plaintiff that it was not confirmed at all even till the day when he filed the suit. The plaintiff gave a wire and also sent a petition on 21-11-1959 stating that no communication of acceptance had been received by him and that he was revoking his bid by his wire and petition. This was followed by letters (Exhibits A.3 to A.5) to the Divisional Forest officer mentioning that the plaintiff had revoked the bid as his offer has not been accepted. It was after the revocation by the plaintiff, the Divisional Forest officer issued a notice (exhibit A.7) calling upon the plaintiff to deposit the initial deposit balance of Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff claimed refund of the deposit amount on the ground that his bid was not accepted. The Government re-auctioned the property on the ground that the plaintiff was in default for not having paid the purchase money and claimed from the plaintiff the loss, that they sustained on account of re-auction. The plaintiff thereupon brought his action against the Government for refund of his money.

(3.) The trial court held that the plaintiff had forfeited Rs. 500/- from his deposit and was entitled to the balance from the Government. The appellate court held that since there was no concluded contract, the plaintiff was at liberty to revoke his bid before the auction was confirmed. Following two decisions Somasundaram Pillai v. Provincial Government of Madras, AIR 1947 Madras 366 rendered by the Madras High Court and the Union of India v. S. Narain Singh, AIR 1953 Punjab 274 rendered by the Punjab High Court the appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the entire sum of Rs. 5,000/- and granted decree therefor. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant has come up in appeal to this court.