PASPAT SAHU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Forest Contractor, whose tender for settlement of Diphu Timber Coupe No. 22 of 1977-78 was accepted, prays for a direction to the respondents to extend the settlement of the forest T.C. No.2 of 1977-78 for a further term or to release the remaining quantity of 28 fell trees.

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that out of 34 trees of the timber coupe he could fell only 6. On his own showing, the petitioner was prosecuted for offences punishable u/s 25(d), 40(2)(c), 41(2), 58(c), 58(2)(a) of the Forest Acts & Rules and under Section 420 of the IPC but he was eventually charged u/s 379 IPC, so framed, and the accused petitioner was later acquitted. Be that as it may, alleging breach of certain conditions of contract, learned counsel contended that the petitioner having deposited the full amount, he is entited to 28 trees. On being specifically asked as to how a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable in a matter purely contractual, learned counsel submitted that the Writ jurisdiction can be invoked even in contractual matters and he referred to Srilekha Vidyarthi's case, but Srilekha Vidyarthi's case has no application to the facts of the present case. It was a case dealing with the appointments of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors throughout the State of U.P., who was removed from their offices on change of Government by a stroke of pen. The case absolutely has no application, it is not a case where the petitioner was denied the opportunity of participating in a bid. In fact his tender was accepted bull when he was found to be indulging in theft of forest produce, on his own showing he was charged with indulging in theft of forest produce although he had been acquitted. This Court is not concerned with his conviction or acquittal at this stage. At its best, all that the petitioner can be said to have suffered is monetary loss for which he has a remedy available in the ordinary course of law. Article 226 is not meant for such remedies, nor for specific performance of contract. Where there is breach of contractual right proper remedy is action for damages. A contract with Government has two phases - (i) the entering, and (ii) the execution. So far as the first phase is concerned, if there is arbitrariness or executive highhandedness, there is some scope for interference under Article 226 but in the second phase, the party can not complaint violation of Article 14 by alleging that he has not been given extension. In cast of breach of contract, as the petitioner has tried to make out, he can get: an effectual adequate remedy by ordinary action in the Civil Court.

(3.) The petition is liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.