WOODCRAFTS Vs. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the revision of royalties made by the State Government for the two periods - 1959 -62 and 1962 -65.

(2.) THE Petitioner Is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, with its headquarters in Calcutta and owns a factory run under, the name and style of "Woodcrafts (Assam) Ltds in Marian District Sib -sagar. It manufactures commercial plywood, decorative plywood, tea chests and other things and the raw material of comes from the forest reserves of Assam. On 7th April, 1956 an agreement of lease was entered by the petitioned with the Governor of Assam where By the Petitioner was granted by the Government the sole right to fell logs, remove trees and timber of the species referred to in Schedule B annexed to the document. The lease was for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal. Clause 18 of the lease which is relied upon by the Petitioner, is in the following terms "(18) (a) Rates of Royalty: - That the lessee will during the period upto the 30th September. 1956 commencing; from the date of these presents, pay, in the manner hereinafter specified, royalty at the rates prescribed in or under Schedule "B" hereto annexed on the loss and sawn timber converted by him. Provided that on 1st October. 1956 and thereafter on the expiry of each period of three years commencing from the 1st October. 1956 the rates of royalty may be revised by the lessor in respect of species listed under Clauses C, D, E and F of Schedule B for which concessions are now allowed in that schedule up to the rates specified in that schedule and from the date of such revision the leasee will pay royalty for these species at such revised rates on all timbers measured by the Forest Officer or his nominees on or from that date; the rates of royalty in respect of classes 'A' and 'B' species of Schedule 'B' are. however not subject to any limitations as regards the rates at which they may be fixed by the lessor as a result of the revision referred to in this clause and the lessee shall pay royalty at these rates on all timber measured by the Forest Officer or his nominees on or from the date of such revision."

(3.) AT one stage Mr. Ghosh very strenuously contended that it is a case of gross injustice and hardship as the delay in the revision of rates has put the Petitioner in great disadvantage in a competing market for the commodity he manufactures out of the raw material. The Petitioner is also unnecessarily burdened' with the increase of royalty after the commodities had been sold out on the basis of price calculated at the rate of the royalty then obtaining. The argument is not without force, but the appeal must be to the Government and not to the Court to give relief if really hardship and injustice have ensued to any party. The Court under Article 226 is confined to administer the law in accordance with the trite and well -recognised principles. Unless the case is brought within the four corners of the tests necessary for inducing the Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will decline to act. We would not therefore be justified in expressing our opinion as to whether the terms of Clause 18 of the agreement have been complied with by Government in this case or not. Our attention has been drawn also to Clause 34 of the agreement providing that all moneys and penalties payable by the lessee shall on failure of payment as provided in this agreement be recoverable from the lessee 'as if such sums were arrears of land revenue. This itself does not make the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation applicable proprio vigore. This method of recovery of dues is the result of an agreement between the parties and will be enforced as a term of the agreement. The insertion of this clause does not add any more efficiency to the agreement which otherwise it has not under the ordinary law.