BUDHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing Annexures 6, 7 and 8. These orders have been passed by various authorities under the provisions of Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

(2.) The Forest Department, Deltonganj, published a notice in the Bihar Gazette dated 7-12-66 for sale of Kendua leaves. The auction was held on 21-12-1966 and the petitioner was the highest bidder. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 9,000/-annually for three years. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 2250/- as earnest amount on 21-12-66 before the authority concerned. He did not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6750/- before the authority concerned. One of the conditions, as mentioned in the advertisement, as contained in Annexure 1, was that if the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid balance amount in the treasury, then in that case, his contract shall automatically be revoked. In the present case, it is admitted position that the petitioner never deposited the balance of the bid amount in the treasury and, as such, his contract was automatically revoked by the department concerned. There is also a provision in para 5 of Annexure 1 that the loss incurred shall be recoverable from the contractor concerned. It is for this reason, it is stated, that the department assessed the loss, that is, Rs. 5531/-and directed the petitioner to pay the loss to the Forest Department. The officer of the Forest Department sent a requisition to the Certificate Officer for realising this amount from the petitioner. The point under consideration is: Whether such amount of damages can be realised by the Certificate Officer under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 or not? (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the provisions of the said Act, any authority can realise the amount through the process of the Act, as mentioned in Schedule 1. The heading of Schedule 1 of the said Act is 'Public Demands'. In this connection, the learned counsel for the State referred to Item No. 9 of Schedule 1 of the Act. In other words the argument of the learned counsel for the State is that this money shall come within the purview of Item No. 9 of Schedule 1 of the Act. It is relevant to quote Item No. 9 of Schedule 1 of the Act;

(3.) On a perusal of Item No. 9 of Schedule 1 of the Act, it is clear that if a party agrees by written instrument to pay a certain amount to the Govt. or to the local authority, then in that case it shall be recoverable as a public demand. On a perusal of Annexure 1, it is clear that the amount of damages is not at all mentioned in annexure 1. In absence of any specified amount, such money cannot be recovered under Item No. 9. The word 'money' mentioned in Item No. 9 means the money specified in the agreement of the parties. In view of the fact that the amount of damages is not mentioned in Annexure 1; as such, amount of damages cannot be recovered by the Forest Department. Neither the agreement nor the Act or the rules made thereunder provides any machinery to ascertain the damages incurred by the Forest Department. Whenever any money is realised as public demand or arrear of revenue or arrear as land revenue, then in all these cases the specified amounts are mentioned by the authorities concerned. If the amount of damage is not mentioned, then it can be ascertained only by the civil court and not by the Forest Department itself.