RAHAMAN BHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is application by a Forest Contractor for rescinding the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division (O.P. 2) on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the solitary question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the principle of natural justice is to be expanded in all cases as a matter of routine and in the absence of following that principle, the impugned order (Annexure-5) can be held to be vitiated in law.

(2.) In pursuance of the second supplementary auction sale notice for the years 1980-81, the working coupe S.W.C. XIX Lot No. (ii) Divisional Lot No. 189 of 1980-81 in Padampur Range in Gandhamardan Block was put to auction by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar on 26-2-1981. The petitioner offered Rs. 3,69,000/- and was declared to be the highest bidder. He deposited a sum of Rs. 36,900/-, being 10% of the bid money, on the same day according to the terms of the sale notice (Annexure-1/a). Part III of the said notice contains the general conditions of sale and inter alia contains the following conditions :- "1. The right to take contract for exploiting forest produce in the lots advertised for sale in Part I of the sale notice will be granted to the bidder whose bid is conditionally accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, subject to the approval of the competent authority and the latter authority as approves it. No sale shall be binding on the Government until such approval has been obtained and communicated to the bidder and the formal agreement is execute on behalf of the Government. No bidder shall be eligible to rescind the contract between the date of bidding and the date of approval of the competent authority. xx xx xx 2(a). Successful bidders shall produce a statement of property, owned by them, duly attested by the concerned Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahasildar on conclusion of the sale in their favour. In case they are unable to produce such a statement for unavoidable reasons, they should produce a statement of property owned by them with their approximate valuation on solemn affirmation before a Magistrate to be followed by a property statement duly attested by a Revenue Officer within a month of the date of auction. In case any successful bidder fails to produce either statement or affidavit as stated above, the sale will be quashed in addition to such other action as may be decided by the competent authority. xx xx xx xx xxxx 10(a). No sale of any lot will be considered valid or complete unless the above conditions have been complied with, and in the event of failure to comply with, the Divisional Forest Officer will be at liberty to quash the sale, forfeit the earnest money deposit under condition 4 or the deposit made under condition 10(a) or the security deposit under condition 10(b) or (c) as the case may be, resell the lot and to recover from the successful bidder, shortfall in price, if any, on such resale, as arrears of land revenue. In case the price received in such resale is more than the accepted bid, the original bidder should not be entitled to the excess. xx xx xx (Underlinings are mine)

(3.) Undisputedly, the petitioner did not furnish the property statement within the stipulated time of one month under the aforesaid Term 2(a) of the notice. Nonetheless, he was called upon by the Divisional Forest Officer by his letter dt. 14-5-1981 (Annexure-3) at the address disclosed by him, to produce the same by 20-5-1981 positively so that ratification order might be issued in his favour. But the petitioner did not take any action on this. His case in the writ application is that he fell ill and was bedridden from 25-3-1981 to 10-6-1981 in his home town in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, he could not receive the above communication and could not carry out the direction. In support of his claim, he has filed a medical certificate. According to the petitioner, he got the latter only when he returned to Khariar after his recovery. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the plea of illness is idle and irrelevant.