ROSHAN LAL SETHI Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Ss. 20 and 5 of the Arbitration Act directing the non -applicants to file the agreement in the Court and for removal of the Arbitrator designate, the Chief Conservator of Forests and for referring the matter in dispute to an independent Arbitrator. The petition states that the petitioner entered into an agreement on 15 -5 -1965 for working, extracting and removal of sawing from Compartment No. 291 of Mandhar Range, Poonch Division against a tendered royalty of Rs. 6,85,629 -51. The duration of the lease was three years subject to such extensions as would be granted by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The petitioner started operating the lease when on 14th of August 1965 armed infiltrators from Pakistan occupied the forest under the operation of the petitioner. This result in complete dislocation of the working of the petitioner and huge loss to them. Then the petitioner by means of various letters sought out reliefs from the forest department but to no avail. On the representation of the petitioner the Conservator of Forests concerned who is the respondent No. 3 in the petition, by means of his letter No. 2108 -09 dated 3 -21966 referred the petitioner to Clause 30 of the agreement intimating to them that the timber extracted from the trees marked and sold to the lessee would lie at the risk of the petitioner and the department was not responsible for any loss sustained by the petitioner. The Government has earmarked Rupees twenty -five lacs for the lessees affected by the war. The petitioner also requested the Chief Conservator of Forests by means of letter dated 10 -1 -1966 and 77 -1966 for grant of a loan as a relief measure. This was ignored by the Chief Conservator of Forests who is the respondent No. 2 in this petition. In another letter dated 7th July. 1966 the petitioners requested the Chief Conservator of Forests to permit them to transport the extracted timber from the launching ghat without payment of the first installment of proportionate royalty but this request of the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Conservator of Forests vide his letter No. 1672/C dated 10 -7 -1966 who drew the attention of the applicant to clause 3 of the agreement. Then further correspondence ensued between the parties. Bank loan was also refused to the petitioner as contained in the letter No. 1159/vii 23/27 dated 19 -2 -1966. This was done after the telephonic talk by the Conservator of Forests with the Chief Conservator of Forests. The petitioners grievance is that a launching ghat was not fixed by the D. F. O, as required under clause 8 of the agreement. According to the petitioner as he had filed an application against the Conservator of Forests in the Anti -corruption Commission, the Conservator of Forests was inimically disposed towards him. It is further stated that on the representation of the petitioner the then Minister for Forest. Shri D. P. Dhar. verbally directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to transfer this case of the petitioner to another Conservator but the Chief Conservator of Forests did not do so. Extension was requested for but the Conservator of Forests in consultation with the Chief Conservator of Forests vide letter No. 105/c II. dated 20 5 -1969 decided to quash the lease of the petitioner and resell the same and directed the D. F. Q, concerned to take over the lease compartment from the petitioner, Then in para No. 9 of the petition the points of difference between the parties are mentioned. It is emphasized that the Conservator of Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests mala fide pass the orders, which they did to ruin the petitioner. In para No. 10 of the petition he mentions the grounds how the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Arbitrator designate in the agreement forfeited the confidence of the petitioner, These grounds may be summarised a follows: (i) that the arbitrator has been party to all the decisions taken by the Conservator of Forests: (ii) that the petitioner was refused loan facilities under the direction of the Chief Conservator of Forests: (iii) that the question of terminating the lease and reselling the forest was taken under the direction and with the consultation of the Chief Conservator of Forest; (iv) that on the interpretation of Clause 30, the Chief Conservator of Forests has pre -judged the issue against the petitioner and in favour of the Department by his letter No. 1633 -34/c dated 28 -12 -1965; (v) that the taking over of the compartment by the D. F. O. under the orders of the Conservator of Forests is the direct result of the Chief Conservator of Forests directions to the Conservator of Forests;

(2.) A number of documents referred to in the petition have been placed on the file which will be discussed later. Objections were filed against this petition by the respondents, and it is stated therein that there was a misjoinder of parties, statement of irrelevant matters and mis -representation of facts. The petitioner has prayed for the removal of the Arbitrator when the proceedings have not yet been initiated. About the facts it is stated that the lease mentioned in the petition was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and an agreement was executed and the petitioner had not been working out the lease earnestly. Pakistani raid is admitted but the rest of the contentions of the petition in this para are denied. The applications presented by the petitioner to the department are not denied but it is stated that the disposal of the applications was legally correct and factually justified, Some paras of the petition are described as irrelevant. The question of mala fide is denied. The order of the Minister directing the Chief Conservator of Forests to transfer the case of the petitioner to another Conservator is also denied. It is stated that the Chief Conservator of Forests is the Arbitrator and he cannot be removed as he is the Arbitrator appointed by the parties with their full consent.

(3.) ARGUMENTS were heard in this petition more than once. At one stage the Additional Advocate General who argued the case ultimately put in an affidavit of Mr. C. Naqishbund. the Chief Conservator of Forests wherein it is stated that the letters which he had written were written by him as the Head of the Department and not as Arbitrator. The letters and orders referred to in the petition were written by him bona fide. The collusion alleged by the petitioner was denied. About the telephonic talk it is stated that he has no recollections and he makes a statement that he will approach the matter with an open and unbiased mind in case he is appointed the Arbitrator.