Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Virendra Kumar And Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7414 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22617 of 2011)
Decided on : 10-07-2024
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantosh Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv. Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR
The Court established that the applicable Conditions of Sale governed the auction, imposing responsibilities on the parties and justifying the forfeiture of the security amount.
Headnote:
Forfeiture - Forest Auction - 1980-81, 1987-88 - Conditions of Sale - Sub-clause (viii) of Clause 10 - Approval of auction - Security amount forfeiture
Fact of the Case:
The Forest Department auctioned lots to the Respondents, who failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The Department forfeited the security amount, leading to a Writ Petition by the Respondents before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the security amount forfeiture was illegal as it contravened the Conditions of Sale applicable in 1997-98, allowing the Writ Petition and directing the refund of the forfeited amount.
Issues: Interpretation of Conditions of Sale Manuals, applicability of sub-clause (viii) of Clause 10, and the legality of security amount forfeiture.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the Conditions of Sale applicable in 1987-88 governed the auction held in 1998, imposing the responsibility on the Respondents to enquire about approval and concluding that the security amount forfeiture was justified.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the validity of the notice issued by the Appellants for security amount forfeiture.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 55072 of 2000. The said Writ Petition in the High Court was filed by the Respondents herein challenging the notice dated 17.01.2000 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gorakhpur forfeiting the security amount of the Respondents. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties as per their instant status before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the matter are that the Forest Department had issued a public notice dated 05.03.1998 inviting registered contractors for participation in a sale auction. In pursuance of the said notice, sale auction was completed on 27.03.1998 as per prescribed procedure and the Respondents offered the highest bids in respect of the various lots. On being declared as the successful bidders, an agreement was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent on the same date with respect to the lot No. 195 (38H Nasirabad, Bankee Range). On the following day itself, a proposal was sent to the Conservator of Forests and Regional Director, Eastern Circle, Gorakhpur, U.P. by the Divisional Forest Officer for approval of the auction proceedings. The said approval was granted by the Regional Director on 14.05.1998.
4. Post approval of the auction proceedings, the Divisional Forest Officer addressed a letter to the Respondent on 15.09.1998 calling upon him to deposit the bid amount of Rs. 2,92,000/- against the respective lots latest by 25.09.1998, obtain their work orders and conclude the work latest by 08.10.1998. It was further stated that in case, the work is not completed within the stipulated time as aforesaid, the security amount deposited with reference to the said auction shall be forfeited and auction proceedings shall be quashed. Even after the issuance of the aforesaid letter, the Respondents did not complete their work and accordingly, a public Notice dated 26.10.1998 was issued by the Forest Department directing the Respondent once again to deposit the bid money and conclude the work. Another notice dated 23.04.1999 was issued to the Respondent stating that the entire work should be completed latest by 15.05.1999, failing which, the amount of security deposited shall be forfeited and the lots in question shall be put to fresh auction. Respondent failed to take action and accordingly on 17.01.2000, the Divisional Forest Officer issued a letter to the Respondent communicating that for non-compliance of the directions given to them, the security amount deposited by them is being forfeited and the lot is being put to re-auction.
5. As mentioned at the outset earlier, the Respondents, being aggrieved by the communication dated 17.01.2000, filed the Writ Petition before the High Court praying for directions to the Appellants to refund the security amount deposited by the Respondent. Before the High Court, the Respondents argued that since the approval to the auction was not granted within the stipulated period, they had applied to withdraw from the auction and were not bound by the said offer made in the auction and accordingly, security amount could not have been forfeited.
6. The agreements between the parties were executed in terms of conditions of sale of the various forest produce. There were two Conditions of Sale Manuals produced before the High Court. The first manual was published in the year 1980-81 and the second manual was published in the year 1987-88. The High Court, in its judgment, observed that there is cutting over the dates of both the manuals relating to application of the order mentioned therein. In the first manual, in place of year 1980-81, it has been cut and made enforced for 1997-98 and in the second manual, in place of 1987-88, it has been cut and made enforced for 1989-90. High Court also noted that the cuttings do not bear any signatures.
7. The Respondents, for their argum
