GH QADIR BAKSH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two matters: -

(2.) THE petition as well as the rejoinder to the petition is a very lengthy one, I shall briefly summarise the relevant portions of the petition and the rejoinder. The petition avers that Compartment No. 12/D. P. P. F. Division was leased out to him for the years 1961 -63 for a tendered offer of Rs. 14,02,211.69 for a marked volume of 5,03,454 Cft. of timber, mostly of fir species; that the petitioner extracted only a small quantity of timber as the area gets snow -bound much earlier than the setting in of winter; that the Forest Department is at an altitude of 10,000 ft. and timber can be removed therefrom by floating it through the Dudh Ganga Nalla, which is floatable only for two months in a year ; that inspite of the best efforts of the petitioner, he could extract only a small portion of the timber ; that in 1962 floods in the stream and 1964 and 1965 disturbances and Indo -Pak conflict respectively resulted in not enabling the petitioner to extract the requisite quantity of timber ; that the petitioner was granted extension upto November 1968 ultimately but the letter of extension dated 26 -9 -1967 was delivered to him late, thus not making it possible for him to take due benefit of the extension granted; that supplementary markings were made to the tune of 82,000 Cft. but this volume was never handed over to the petitioner ; that under similar circumstances other contractors had been granted extensions but it was not done in the case of the petitioner ; that the responsibility of not allowing the petitioner to work out the lease properly was upon the Forest Department ; that the Conservator had by his letter No. 3872 -74 C/vii dated 20 -2 -1970 cancelled his lease and ordered a writ of demand to be issued against the petitioner ; that this cancellation was not in accordance with law and no show cause notice for this order had been given to the petitioner ; that the Conservator of Forests had no right to cancel the lease nor are there any reasons to support this order ; that the extensions granted to the petitioner have always been communicated to him very late, leaving no period for working out the lease; that there were recommendations for the extension of the lease by the D.F.O. and the Range Officer concerned ; that there are claims and counter claims; that Clause 44 of the agreement makes all disputes between the parties referrable to arbitration ; that the matter be referred to the arbitration of the Chief Conservator of Forests, who is the Arbitrator nominated in the agreement.

(3.) IN reply to this long petition, the respondents learned counsel Mr. Anil Dev Singh in his objections to the petition has stated that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for filing of the agreement and referring the matter to arbitration; that no dispute in terms of Clause 44 of the agreement is made out; that the petitioner took the contract knowing fully well the conditions prevailing in the Forest; that the allegations about the early snow -fall are totally unconnected with the facts whether the dispute has to be referred to the arbitration or not; that the petitioner had not been working satisfactorily from the very beginning of the lease and in order to help the petitioner, a loan of Rs. 50,000/ - was secured on the responsibility of the department for him; that no timber of the petitioner was washed away during flood; that the department has been very generous to the petitioner in extending the period of execution by four years; that the extensions were given to the petitioner from November 1964 to November 1968; the allegations of the petitioner that extension letters or orders were communicated to the petitioner rather late are denied by the respondents and it is stated that extension of time of a lease is not a matter of right. It is stated that the supplementary marking was conducted and handed over to the petitioner in time; that the petitioner has been given four extensions already and no more indulgence can be shown to him. Many other paragraphs of the petition are denied. The allegations of claims and counterclaims are denied. There are no disputes between the parties for which the arbitration clause could be invoked. The allegations of differences are all mala fide and are made only to evade the payment of royalty due from the petitioner to the department.