NARESH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.11.2009 in W.P.No.11048/2009, by which writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs was dismissed :-

(2.) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that in the writ petition, appellant had prayed for refund of security amount for which there was no order of forfeiture and the appellant was entitled for refund of security amount, but the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has held that the Collector has forfeited the security amount and dismissed the writ petition. It was submitted by the appellant that in absence of any order of forfeiture of security, appellant was entitled for refund of security amount.

(3.) To appreciate the contention of appellant, we have gone through the record and find that appellant was awarded Trade Quarry Mouja Dhana, Tahsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur over Khasra No. 142,246/1,246/2, 251 admeasuring 2 hectares for a period of two years for Rs.7,21,000/- per annum payable in four equal instalments of Rs. 1,80,250/-. An agreement was entered into on 14.5.2007. The petitioner as per the agreement has deposited an amount of Rs.21,16,300/- as earnest money on 16.3.2007. Thereafter there were certain defaults in depositing the instalments as per the agreement. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 26.11.2007, but the appellant had not complied with the notice or with the terms of agreement and ultimately the agreement was cancelled by an order on 1.5.2008, by which the Collector found that the appellant was defaulter for compliance of clause 5(1), (12) & 29 of the agreement and under clause 28 of the agreement, lease was cancelled and entire security amount was forfeited. The Collector also directed that because of furnishing incorrect information, criminal proceedings be also initiated against the appellant. Against the order dated 1.5.2008 Annexure P-8, appellant had preferred an appeal before the Director, who by order dated 2.6.2008 Annexure P-9 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. Thereafter the Collector, Narsinghpur passed an order Annexure P-1 dated 7.8.2008, by which the Collector found that there was breach of clause no.5(1), 9 of the agreement and under clause 9 of the agreement the lease was cancelled. He had further directed that for furnishing incorrect information criminal proceedings be initiated against the appellant. This order dated 7.8.2008 was under challenge before the Single Bench. The learned Single Judge not only affirmed the order, but in the operative part of the order in last para observed as under, which reads thus :-