GH AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the registered sub -contractor of the State Forest Corporation which itself is the contractor of the Forest Department of Government of Jammu and Kashmir. According to the averments in the petition, a tender notice was issued in March 1983 in respect of various compartments and various composite contracts were issued by the State Forest Corporation for felling and loging of timber etc. The petitioner was allotted compartment Nos 4 -5 -11 and 2 Marmat besides some other compartments on negotiation basis. It is the case of the petitioner that when the allotment of work was made in his favour, an agreement came into existence between the parties, but the then management of the State Forest Corporation, realizing the difficult circumstances under which the petitioner had agreed to undertake the work promised to continuously allot to him the subsequent markings to those compartments from year to year. The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to that promise, the respondents have issued a fresh tender notice inviting tenders for various facets of the work involved in certain compartments including compartment No. 4 Marmat. He, therefore, invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel to bind the corporation to keep on allotting the work to him year to year on the same terms and conditions at which he was altotted the work in 1983 because relying on their promise, the petitioner had altered his position and made huge investments. Placing reliance on A I R 1979 S C 621 learned counsel urged that a writ of Certiorari be issued quashing, the impugned tender notice in so far as it relates to compartment No. 4, Marmat.

(2.) THE respondents Nos 2 to 10 have filed their objections supported by an affidavit opposing the admission of the writ petition. Besides taking certain preliminary objections, it is stated by the respondents that in 1983, compartment Nos in question were allotted to the petitioner, after negotiations, because the rates offered by him were found reasonable and for no other reason. It is asserted that in the year i984 when the compartments in question were advertised a particular volume as was at that time available, was handed over to the State Forest Corporation and the same was handed over by the State Forest Corporation and the same was mentioned against each of the compartment for which the tenders were invited. For extraction and other operations. The additional fresh marking was conducted by the State Forest Corporation well after the execution of the agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation and, therefore, the question of any premise having been held out on the part of the corporation to the petitions for subsequent allotment, did not arise. The respondents have then stated that "at no point of lime any promise was made by the respondents either in writing or even oral to the petitioner that the additional marking for the subsequent years in these compartments shall also be allotted to the petitioner." Hence the principles of promissory estoppel are not attracted. It is maintained that the petitioner has wrongly alleged that the promise to allot the additional marking for the subsequent arears was made to him by the corporation or any of its officers, or that he has changed his position to his detriment.

(3.) THIS court had an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of promissory estoppel in Malhotra and sons Versus Union of India, A. I. R 1976 J and K, 41 wherein it was observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is the development of recent times and is something beyond the ordinary role of estoppel as envisaged by Section 15 Relying upon a Catena of authorities and after discussing the development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel in its application to the Government, it was held: "The courts will only hind the Government by a promise to prevent manifest in justice or fraud and will not make the Government a slave of its policy for all times to come when the Government acts in its governmental, public, or sovereign capacity." (Emphasis supplied) This judgment came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Excise Commissioner, U. P. Versus Ram Kumar and ors, A. I. R. 1976 Supreme Court, 2237, when a Bench of four judges in para No. 23 noticed with approval the aforesaid observations of this court. The same observations were once again noticed with approval in M/S Moti Lal Padmapat Sugar Mills Ltd Versus of U P. and ors (A 1 R 1979 S. C 621) in para 29 of that judgment.