GURUBACHAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition asking for a writ of certiorari or mandamus for quashing the impugned demand of Rs. 35,968.30 demanded by respondent No. 3 the Divisional Forest Officer, Udaipur from the petitioner on account of compensation for having unauthorisedly felled trees. An auction for the bamboos in forest coupe Ramkunda No. 4 Jhadol Range Forest Division wax held on 20 -12 -71 for the session from 1 -10 -71 to 30 -6 -72, the cutting period expiring on 31 -3 -72. The bid of the petitioner for Rs. 50,000/ - was accepted and an agreement was duly entered between the petitioner and the State of Rajasthan. The working period of the contract is from the date of communication of sanction to 30 -6 -72. The sanction of the coupe was granted by the competent authority on 28 -1 -72, the petitioner took possession of the coupe on 30 -1 -72. The agreement between the parties which was executed is Annexure 1 to the petition. One of the allegations made in the petition is that because of the short time available to the petitioner he could not exploit the forest produce fully and that though be asked for extension of the time the same was not permitted to him This fact has been denied in the return where it is maintained that the petitioner was able to exploit fully forest produce. We are however not concerned with this aspect of the matter in the present petition.

(2.) It appears that a complaint was made to the respondents about the alleged illicit felling of the bamboos outside the limit of the petitioner's coupe and after some preliminary inquiry a notice dated 23 -4 -72 was sent by respondent No. 3 the Divisional Forest Officer to the petitioner pointing out that as illicit felling of bamboos outside his coupe was suspected the petitioner was directed not to it move the felled material from the coupe so long as the inquiry was continuing. The petitioner on receipt of this notice represented to the Divisional Forest Officer and other authorities that be may be permitted to take out his forest produce from the forest coupe pending the inquiry and even wrote a letter dated 17 -5 -72 requesting that this permission may be given The authorities however did not agree to let him remove bamboos without condition and therefore directed him by a notice dated 30 -5 -72 from the Divisional Forest Officer that the Conservator of Forest had by his order dated 29 -5 -72 directed that if the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000/ - in cash and gave a security of Rs. 15,000/ - he could be allowed to take out the forest produce from the forest coupe. As an amount of Rs. 18,769/ - was already lying in deposit of the petitioner with the Forest Authorities the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 11,231/ - in cash and to furnish security of Rs. 16,000/ -. The petitioner thereafter deposited an amount of Rs. 11,231/ - in cash and furnished surety of Rs. 15,000/ - and directed by be Divisional Forest Officer and was permitted to take out the forest produce from his coupe Thereafter the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 5 -7 -72 informing him that a result of the Inquiry the Forest Authorities had come to the conclusion that 14085 bamboos of 5" circumference and 15320 of lesser circumference (a total of 29885 bamboos) have been felled illegally by the petitioner for which a compensation of Rs. 35,638.30 had been imposed on the petitioners and asking him to deposit the said amount within a period of 15 days otherwise the said amount will be recovered in accordance with the Rules. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest by his letter dated 3 -9 -72 in which he disputed his liability and maintained that be had not made any illegal felling. He also made a grievance that be had not even able to exploit his coupe No. 4 fully and that be was not at all responsible for any damage done to the neighbouring forest area. He also made a grievance that no inquiry was made in his presence. He also pointed out that the Forest Authorities had themselves permitted local inhabitants to cut trees for their domestic use and the petitioner could not be held responsible to check house and he could not be therefore held liable directly or indirectly for any bamboo which had been felled -Apparently this representation of the petitioner did not meet with any success and the petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned demand.

(3.) Condition No. 39 of the agreement provides that the contractor will be responsible for any loss of the forest or any unauthorised work done done either by him or by any of his person and that if any of the conditions of the agreement are violated the Divisional Forest Officer will be entitled to forfeit the earnest money and deposit made by the contractor and that on such a forfeiture the contract or will be liable to make up for the deficiency of the amount, Apart from this whatever amount the Divisional Forest Officer determines as a lots to the forest the contractor will have to deposit that also and all the time said amount is not deposited and the amount of the loss of forest is not made up the contractor will not be allowed to work or cut any trees in his lot. Condition No. 42 provides that the contractor will be responsible for any illegal felling of the jungle near about his lot. Condition No. 44 lays down that it there is any dispute about the meaning or the conditions of the agreement or of any other question in connection with the agreement or if there is any dispute or difference then each of such question will be decided by the Chief Conservator of Forest Rajasthan and his decision will be binding and final on both the parties.