STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JILLUDUMUDI VENKATARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants. It arises out of a suit for realisation of Rs. 905/- which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as security money for the due performance of the contract entered into between the parties under the document dated 18-2-57 which is Ex. 1 on the record and whereof Ext. E forms a part. Ext. E is a comprehensive act of rules for the guidance V of the forest officers and forest contractors in making contracts for the sale and purchase of forest produce. The plaintiff is a contractor and the aforesaid contract was given to him for collecting the minor forest produce, such as, tamarind, Mohuwa seeds and others from the Ravagada Unit in the Parlakhimedi Taluk. Thereunder the plaintiff was to remove the forest produce from the forest areas within the period from 222-57 till the end of 30-9-57. As a consideration for it he was to pay a sum of Rs. 9050/- in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 3018/- was payable on 13- 57, the second instalment of Rs. 3016/- was payable on 1-5-57, the third instalment of Rs. 3016/- was payable on 1-7-57. It was also stipulated under the contract that the plaintiff was to deposit a sum of rs. 905/- as security money for the due performance of the contract and it is not denied that in pursuance of the contract the plaintiff deposited the said sum of Rs. 905/- as security money with the defendants. It is security deposit, as already stated, which is the subject matter of claim in the present case. It appears that the first two instalments were actually paid and accepted by the defendants though not exactly on the dates due, but within the period allowed by them. The difficulty however arose on account of the non-payment of the third instalment which was due to be paid on 1-7-57. Originally the plaintiff applied for extension of time for payment of the demand and that prayer was allowed and the time was extended for payment of the third instalment till 25-7-57. But even after this extension that amount was not paid and his agreement, as provided in Rule 34 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, was determined by letter No. 15403 C. F. dated 26-8-1957. This order determining the contract was communicated to the plaintiff by the divisional Forest Officer in his memo No. 2712 dated 30-8-57. Thereunder the plaintiff was permitted to pay the arrears dues together with interest within a month. Unfortunately the plaintiff could not take advantage even of this period allowed to him for payment of the dues with the result that the necessary step for realisation of these dues were taken against him under the Madras Revenue recovery Act. Before however the proceedings under the said Act could be completed, it appears that the plaintiff deposited in the sub-treasury of parlakhimedi the entire dues which were left yet unpaid along with interest up to the date of payment. In the meantime under Rule 34 (3) (e) the security deposit of the contractor the plaintiff was forfeited by the Government and despite the demands made for refund of this amount the same was not paid back to him. Hence the suit for realisation of the same.

(2.) RULES 34 (3) of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules provides that: