1966 Supreme(SC) 131

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Chief Conservator of Forests, Rewa and others, Appellants
Versus
Ratan Singh Hans, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 273 of 1959, dated 7-4-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. P. Kapur and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. Shaukat Hussain, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - plea not taken in the petition before the High Court or before any authority-writ cannot be issued on such ground - Forest Contract Rules (C. P. & Berar) - R. 15.

       The High Court has without any plea or evidence assumed that compensation under R. 15(1) of the Forest Contract Rules could not be directed to be paid by the contractor for damage done in the coupe, for which he was given a contract, because the coupe was not included in the reserved forest. The plea which appealed to the High Court was not raised in the petition, nor in the objections to the Divisional Forest Officer in reply to the notice to show cause, nor in the memorandum of appeal before the Con3ervator of Forests, nor in the petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Chief Conservator of Forests. The High Court assumed that because the forest authorities charged the contractor with illegal fellings in the coupe granted to him, the fellings could not be in a reserved forest. For this assumption there is no warrant. The High Court was therefore in error in setting up the ground that the impugned order was not authorised under the terms of Rule 15 (1).

       [Para 3]

       (2) Forest Contract Rules (C. P. & Berar) - R. 15 - forest contract making the rules part of the contract-clause 9 of the contract authorising Chief Conservator of Forests to adjudicate whether there was or was not a breach of contract by the contractor-Rule 15 authorising Divisional Forest Officer to determine the amount of compensation-no demand for damages for breach can be made unless the Chief Conservator of Forests adjudicates that there was a breach of contract by the contractor.

       There is no inconsistency between clause 9 of the contract and Rule 15 of the Forest Contract Rules. Under Rule 15 the liability for damage done in a reserved forest is declared against the contractor by the Chief Conservator of Forests, and be is declared liable to pay compensation as may be assessed by the Divisional Forest Officer. The Divisional Forest Officer is not invested with the authority to determine whether the damage was done by the contractor, his agents or servants. That is a matter which must be determined in a reference under clause 9 of the contract. [Para 8]

       Any demand made from a contractor for damage by the Divisional Forest Officer without an adjudication by the Chief Conservator of Forests is illegal. 1961 JLJ SN 236 confirmed.

       (3) Forest Contract Rule, (C. P. & Berar) - R.30(1)-penalty-cannot be imposed by the Divisional Forest Officer unless the Chief Conservator of Forests adjudicates that the contractor had made a breach of contract.

       The Divisional Forest Officer has power to impose a penalty in a sum not exceeding Rs. 500, if there is a breach by the forest contractor of any terms of the contract. The Divisional Forest Officer cannot impose the penalty unless the Chief Conservator of Forests has adjudicated that there has been such a breach. [Para 11]

       (4) Practice-revisional or supervisory jurisdiction-order passed in-is not in exercise of original jurisdiction of arbitration-an order passed in revision-cannot satisfy the requirement of passing an order on original side.

       The Chief Conservator of Forests was required to adjudicate whether there had been a breach of contract or not by the contractor. No such adjudication was made by that authority. It was contended that when the matter went to that authority in revision, a decision was in fact given by him and the condition was fulfilled.

       Held: The trial was not a proceeding in exercise of supervisory or revisional jurisdiction.

       [Para 10]

       (5) Interpretation of Contracts-language unambiguous-procedure provided in the contract clumsy and likely to be diletory-no ground to ignore the plain terms of the contract.

       Where the language of a contract is unambiguous, even if the procedure prescribed in it for determining the liability of one of the parties is clumsy and likely to be dilatory, the plain terms of the contract cannot be ignored. [Para 9]