ROYAKA MANGULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ applications under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution have been heard analogously as agreed to by the parties and will be governed by this common judgment. Challenge is to the decision of the State Government vesting the right of collection of the tamarind and tamarind seeds from the Government Forests in the Rayagada Forest Range in the district of Koraput, in the opposite party No. 4 Shri Doki China Guruvulu Son and Company, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, namely, Doki Satyanarayana, for utilization in its industry for a period of three years with effect from Oct. 1, 1981 in accordance with the State Government's Industrial Policy Resolution. The petitioners impugn this decision and the consequent orders passed for its implementation as per Annexures 3 to 5 in O. J. C. No. 67 of 1983 and Annexures 2 to 4 in the other writ applications, as illegal, invalid and inoperative in law, being in violation of Arts.14 and 19 of the Constitution affecting adversely the right of trade of petitioners in O. J. C. Nos. 1359 and 1786 of 1982 who are said to be collectors of tamarind and also of the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 67 of 1983 who are said to be traders purchasing tamarind from the lessees of the Government Forests and selling the same in the markets within and outside the State. In the former two cases, the petitioners assert that the impugned decision has deprived them of getting a competitive price for the stocks collected by them and thus putting them to financial loss. In the other case, the petitioners allege that they have not been given an opportunity for collecting tamarind and tamarind seeds from the Government Forests and thereby their trade has adversely been affected. The petitioners assert that a monopoly right, which could not be, had illegally been vested in the opposite party No. 4 and this had been done under the influence of Mr. Ramachandra Ulaka, a Minister of the Cabinet rank in the State, with whom the Managing Partner of the opposite party No. 4 was said to be hands in glove. It has been asserted by them that the stand taken by the State that the right has been vested in the opposite party No. 4 to foster its industry set up in the same division in accordance with the Industrial Policy Resolution of the State Government was a fake one and an eye-wash.

(2.) The decision of the State Government which is under challenge is in the following terms :

(3.) In their counter-affidavits, the opposite parties have controverted the assertions made by the petitioners and their case is that after due consideration of the representation made by the opposite party No. 4 and keeping in mind that it runs an industry, the State Government has taken a legal and reasonable decision in its favour by granting the lease to it, in accordance with the Industrial Policy Resolution of the State Government, to foster its industry and not with a view to allowing undue profits to the opposite party No. 4, as stated by the petitioners. It was not a monopoly right given to the opposite party No. 4 and in the absence of statutory rules or executive instructions governing the grant of such lease, it was open to the State Government to deal with its property in the manner it had done and no public interest had been affected by the impugned transaction. It is contended by the opposite parties that the decision was neither actuated by mala fides nor had been taken as a result of influence by Mr. R. C. Ulaka, a Minister of Cabinet rank, as falsely alleged by the petitioners. According to the opposite parties, the State has not incurred loss nor has the opposite party No. 4 gained undue advantage by the impugned lease granted in its favour.