HARI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 4-3-1982 passed by the respondent-Conservator of Forest directing that the respondent-Bairia Forest Labourers Co-operative Society should be allowed to work in Forest Lot No. 31 situated in Bhabhua Range. A copy of that order is Annexure 2 to the writ application.

(2.) It appears that forest coupes are settled from time to time on basis of auctions held. On 28-1-1982 one such auction took place in respect of Lot No. 31, Coupe No. 18 in Bhabhua Range. The petitioner was the highest bidder having offered Rs. 25,000/-for the same. After the bid, he deposited 15% of the bid money amounting to Rupees 3,750/-. It is not in dispute that the settlement in favour of the highest bidder at such an auction was to be made only after the approval of the Conservator of Forest. According to the petitioner, respondent-Conservator of Forest instead of approving the proposal for settlement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said Lot no. 31 passed the impugned order directing that respondent No. 5 which is a Forest Labourers' Co-operative Society, be allowed to work in the said Lot. Such an action on the part of the Conservator of Forest according to the petitioner, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power in matters of settlement of coupes and liable to be quashed by this Court,

(3.) The State has to settle such forest coupes to different persons either on basis of a public auction or on basis of some guidelines laid by the State Government to Co-operative Societies for exploitation of the coupes in question. Of course, while making any settlement, the State is required to act in a manner which cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. The scope of the power of the State while allotting contracts, making settlements, has been examined in detail in the well known case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) where it was pointed out that the State even in such matters is required to act in a manner which cannot be held to be arbitrary. Still if such power has been exercised on basis of some reasonable principle or on basis of some guidelines issued by the State Government, which cannot be held to be arbitrary, then there is no question of interference by this Court. As such, it has to be examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case it can be held that by not accepting the highest bid of the petitioner and directing settlement in favour of respondent-Co-operative Society the respondent-Conservator of Forest acted in a manner which is not sanctioned by law.