UTTAM RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Messrs. Uttam Ram and Company, is a registered partnership firm. The defendant No. 1 State of Himachal Pradesh, held auction for the award of work for the extraction of timber in respect of lot No. 30/1980 -82 comprised in Lower Chamba Range, known as "Karinhi", "Upper Jhamar1 and "Haddar" on 12/13th February, 1980 at Bhadroa, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. The plaintiff offered the highest bid of Rs. 9,45,000/ -, excluding sales tax and surcharge at the rate of 27%. The offer of the plaintiff was accepted and consequently an agreement came to be entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 through its Conservator of Forests, Chamba. The forests were handed over to the plaintiff in July 1980. The timber auctioned comprised of standing volume of "Deodar" to the extent of 34,578 CFT and "Fir and Spruce" to the extent of 70,579 CFT. The work, as per the terms of the agreement was to be completed by March 1982.

(2.) The plaintiff undertook the work and completed the same well within time. The plaintiff was able to extract total timber to the following extent: - (a) 13,201 scants of Deodar = 17287.33 CFT (b) 19,227 scants of Fir and Spruce = 25885.66 CFT Total : 34,428 scants = 43172.99 CFT During the period the plaintiff was working the forests through its labourers and employees, the work was being supervised by the forest staff and at no point of time it was pointed out that there has been any illicit felling and extraction of timber by the plaintiff.

(3.) In December 1980, one Punnu Ram, Gram Pradhan of Grma Panchayat Gagla, Tehsil and District Chamba, out of enmity, made a false complaint regarding illicit felling of trees and extraction of timber by the plaintiff. On the basis of such complaint, an inquiry was conducted by Shri K.C. Thakur, the then Assistant Conservator of Forests, Chamba, The plaintiff was never associated during such inquiry. It appears that on the basis of the inquiry so conducted, Shri K.C. Thakur on 12.6.1981 reported that the plaintiff had illicitly felled and extracted timber to the following extent: - Sr. No Name of forest No. & kind of trees Volume Value