MOHD AMIN DUGGA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was allowed to work for departmental extraction of timber in Compartment No. 19(b) C Lidder Division to the tune of 52450 Cfts. purely on the terms and condition laid in the technical sanction vide communication No. CCF(K)/L/Deptt.Exctt./3521 -22 dated 25 -11 -2002 issued by respondent No. 3/ Chief Conservator of Forest, Srinagar. This allotment was made at the rate of Rs. 30/ - as extraction charges and 0.33 paisa per Km/per Cft. as transportation charges. This allotment was made on the condition that the petitioner will complete the work within a period of one month after the fulfillment of required formalities under rules and obtaining necessary affidavit from the allottee to the effect that he will complete the work within the stipulated period as indicated in the communication. The case of the petitioner is that he could not start the work immediately on account of blockage of the road leading to the Compartment by the locals of the area. The road was cleared after two months and thereafter the work also could not be started on account of snow fall. The concerned authorities were communicated about the factual position. The petitioner, however, stated to have started the extraction/transportation work in the month of January/February, 2003. After having extracted 1500 qtls. of fire wood, the compartment again became inaccessible due to fresh snow fall. After ending March, 2003, about 8000 cft. were transported and handed over to the respondent/authorities. The petitioner further stated to have approached the Minister with the representation upon which respondent No. 3 was directed to allow the petitioner to continue the extraction/transportation work of the Compartment in terms of the instructions already issued. The respondent No. 3, however, instead of complying with the instructions/directions given by the Minister on his representation, directed to accommodate the petitioner somewhere else in the Division and, for malafide and extraneous considerations, allowed respondent No. 7 to undertake the balanced extraction/transportation work left over by the petitioner in the said Compartment. The petitioner, aggrieved of this action of the respondent No. 3 in allotting the work to respondent No. 7 vide No. CFS/03 -04/D/work/372 dated 14 -08 -2003 being contrary to the policy decision/instructions of the Government and in violation of the principles of natural justice, approached the court for seeking its quashment by issuing writ of certiorari with the further direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to undertake the extraction/transportation of the balance timber from the said Compartment without hindrance, by a writ of mandamus.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents, in their objections, is that the petitioner was allowed to extract the timber from the Compartment on the condition that he will complete the said work within a period of one month. The petitioner could extract timber only to the tune of 5954 cfts upto ending March 2003 and no choice was left with the respondent but to cancel the authorization issued in his favour. The cancellation of authorization was necessitated by the discharge of legal obligation by the respondents to provide timber to the needy persons. As the stock with the department had already exhausted, Extraction/transportation work was alloted to respondent No. 7 who, within a period effective from 14 -08 -2003 to 22 -08 -2003, was able to extract 2500 cfts. of timber, as evidenced from annexure -A to the objections. Further submission of the respondents is that the extraction work was alloted by the department to the petitioner only on the condition that it will be completed within a period of one month. This being the terms of the authorization and the petitioner having not completed the work of extraction/transportation within the said period, as a consequence, the allotment stands cancelled. It is stated that no fundamental statutory right vested in the petitioner so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court. It is further stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of having filed a civil suit in the court of City Judge, Srinagar. It is submitted that a person cannot be allowed to pursue two parallel remedies the writ petition and the civil action and on this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to a relief in the writ petition.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the rival contentions in context with the pleadings and documents on record in support thereof.