HAROON RASHID Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1984 the State Government of M. P. appointed M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, a Government Co-operative Society as its agent for disposal of the Tendu leaves alloted to the Federation. In the said order the Government took a decision regarding disposal of Tendu leaves of the units by allotting 1053 units to the Federation, the agent and 773 units by the State Government. Both the State Government and the Federation issued separate tender notices. A decision was taken to dispose of the units in either case inviting tenders on lump-sum price basis without specifying the quantity of Tendu leaves expected to be collected from a particular unit. In the tender notice issued by the Federation in the year 1984, the upset price was disclosed against each unit. In the tender notice issued by the State Government no upset price was specified. The petitioner got registered as exporter of Tendu leaves under Section 11 of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 as per the essential conditions of the tender notice issued by the State Government. In respect of tenders by order issued on 21-3-1984 by the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal the offer of the petitioner was accepted in respect of Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra and 10-C, Veerpur in the Raisen Forest Division. It is worthnoting here the petitioner was called upon to execute an agreement in the manner stated therein, failing which the petitioner was to be held liable for penalty and other consequences under Clause 16 (a) of the tender notice. As some of the tenderers had series of grievances the matter was challenged before this Court in M. P. No. 1036/84 (Bhikabhai Mehta v. State of M. P. and Ors. ). As averred the petitioner did not execute the agreement. It is worthwhile to note here that before not executing the agreement the petitioner had made certain requests to the authorities, namely, the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal but they were not paid heed to. Eventually by order dated 4-5-1984 the appointment of the petitioner as a purchaser was cancelled and an auction was held as contemplated under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice.

(2.) AS the petitioner did not execute the agreement the auction was again held without notice to the petitioner. Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer, Raisen issued a demand notice purported to be under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice demanding the loss to have been suffered by the State Government. In respect of the Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra, a demand notice was given on 3-5-1989 demanding that a sum of Rs. 3,82,374. 00 has the loss sustained by the State Government resulting on account of failure of petitioner to execute the agreement in respect of Unit No. 10-B, Sunehra. The petitioner submitted a representation on 5-2-1997 to the Conservator of Forest, Bhopal stating therein that due to the erroneous interpretation of Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice, the petitioner was being asked to pay the amount to the State Government. It was his contention that the Government has earned profit of Rs. 32,027. 16 in respect of these two lots and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount. The representation of the petitioner was not decided by the State Government and a proceeding was initiated for recovery and hence, this petition challenging the action of the State Government has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contending, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable due to latches and the grievances of the petitioner can be agitated under the appropriate provision of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. That apart, it has been urged that the petitioner had submitted his tenders for two units and they were accepted and were communicated to him and the petitioner was required to execute an agreement as per the condition No. 16 (a) of the Tender Notice but as he did not execute the agreement the petitioner's appointment as an agent for two units was cancelled and accordingly demand notices were issued under Clause 16 (a) of the Tender Notice. It is further putforth that as the petitioner did not deposit the amount a revenue recovery certificate was issued. While dealing with the loss it has been averred in the return that as per unit No. 10-B, Sunehra the tender amount received from the petitioner was Rs. 1,85,786. 92. For this unit by collecting and disposing through the department the respondents had received the price of Rs. 1,48,053. 87. It is stated that for the collection the answering respondents were required to spend Rs. 3,54,542. 97 and the total loss to the answering respondents was Rs. 3,82,374. 02. In regard to Unit 10-C, Veerpur the tender amount was Rs. 99,786. 92. The answering respondents received the price of Tendu Leaves through department Rs. 1,68,645. 10 but the answering respondents had to spend Rs. 1,60,796. 68 towards collection expenditure. Thus, the total profit received by the answering respondents is only Rs. 7,848. 50. It is putforth that if the petitioner would have executed agreement the answering respondents would have received the total gross profit of Rs. 99,786. 92 without spending anything. In view of the aforesaid reasonings steps have been taken for collection of the profit.