ADWAIT CHARAN SAHU Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER ATHMALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter, "the Act") was initiated against the petitioner for realising a sum of Rs. 8,000/- said to be due as per Rule 34 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, "the Rules'. This sum was sought to be realised on these facts :- The petitioner, who is a forest contractor, took part in an auction which was held for selling West Baruni Coppice Coupe No. 5 of Divisional Lot No. 17, His bid was of Ra. 12,100/-. The sale was knocked down in his favour, and he was called upon to deposit the security money. But instead of depositing the amount, he fled away from the auction hall and thus made the sale ineffective. The Divisional Forest Officer, Athmallik, thereafter, in pursuance of paragraph 10(a) of General Conditions of Sale, quashed the auction sale and resold the coupe in a fresh auction which fetched Rs. 4,100/- only. The shortfall, therefore, came to Rs. 8,000/-, and it is this amount for realisation of which the aforesaid proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In his objection filed, as at Annexure 3, the petitioner took various grounds, but the Certificate Officer rejected the contentions by his order dated 26-10-83 and ordered to proceed with execution to realise the dues. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred and the learned Additional District Magistrate by his impugned order dismissed the same after having observed that the case of the appellant might not fall under Rule 34 of the Rules but the action of the Divisional Forest Officer to realise the amount under the terms of the sale notice came under the purview of Section 87 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed.

(2.) The petition was once finally heard on 3-5-91. During the course of the hearing, Shri Misra raised various objections to the initiation of the certificate proceeding, one of which was that the amount, if any, was payable to the Government, and so, the Divisional Forest Officer could not have been described as the certificate-holder, as it appeared from the certificate issued by the Certificate Officer, Athmallik, a copy of which is as at Annexure 2. In support of this objection, the learned counsel referred to some decisions of this Court, which we shall note later. To counter the submission advanced by Shri Misra, learned Government Advocate referred to some other decisions of this Court, and the Bench which heard the case observed in paragraph 5 of the judgement as below :-

(3.) Before we advert to the decisions of this Court cited earlier and now, it would be in the fitness of things to know what was held by the Privy Council in Baijnath v. Ramgut, 23 IA 45, which decision has set the trend to be followed by this Court or, for that matter, by other High Courts which have dealt with a similar matter.